The 2013 Update of the Danube Basin Analysis Report · 2013 Update of the Danube Basin Analysis Report ii ICPDR / International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River

ICPDR / International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River / www.icpdr.org

The 2013 Update of the Danube Basin Analysis Report

Document number: IC 183

Version: FINAL

Date: 2014-10-16


Imprint

Published by:

ICPDR – International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River

© ICPDR 2014

Contact

ICPDR Secretariat

Vienna International Centre / D0412

P.O. Box 500 / 1400 Vienna / Austria

T: +43 (1) 26060-5738 / F: +43 (1) 26060-5895

[email protected] / www.icpdr.org

Disclaimer

This report is based on data delivered and updated by Danube countries by 15 October 2014. More

updated data is planned to be presented in the 2nd

Danube River Basin Management Plan. The data has

been dealt with, and is presented, to the best of our knowledge. Nevertheless inconsistencies cannot be

ruled out.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.icpdr.org/

2013 Update of the Danube Basin Analysis Report i


Table of Contents

1 Introduction and background 1

1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Scope and objective 2 1.3 Structure and contents 3

2 The Danube River Basin District 4

2.1 General characterisation 4 2.2 Geographical characterisation 5 2.3 Climate and hydrology 6

2.4 Land cover and land use 7

3 Water bodies in the Danube River Basin District 10

3.1 Surface waters: rivers, lakes, transitional waters and coastal waters 10 3.1.1 Identification of surface water categories 10 3.1.2 Surface water types and reference conditions 10 3.1.3 Identification of surface water bodies 18

3.2 Groundwater 20 3.2.1 Groundwater in the DRBD 20 3.2.2 Transboundary groundwater bodies of basin-wide importance 21

4 Significant pressures identified in the DRBD 24

4.1 Surface waters: rivers 24

4.1.1 Organic pollution 24 4.1.2 Nutrient pollution 31 4.1.3 Hazardous substances pollution 40 4.1.4 Hydromorphological alterations 43 4.1.5 Other issues 52 4.2 Surface waters: lakes, transitional waters, coastal waters 53

4.3 Groundwater 54 4.3.1 Groundwater quality 55

4.3.2 Groundwater quantity 56

5 Artificial and Heavily Modified Water Bodies 57

5.1 Approach for the designation of Heavily Modified Water Bodies 57 5.1.1 Surface waters: rivers 57

5.1.2 Surface waters: lakes, transitional waters and coastal waters 58

5.2 Results of the designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies 58 5.2.1 Surface waters: rivers 58 5.2.2 Surface waters: lakes, transitional waters and coastal waters 59

6 Impacts and Risk Assessment 60

6.1 Monitoring networks for surface waters and groundwater 60 6.1.1 Surface waters 60 6.1.2 Groundwater 61

2013 Update of the Danube Basin Analysis Report ii


6.2 Risk assessment for surface waters: rivers, lakes, transitional waters and coastal waters 61 6.2.1 Rivers 61 6.2.2 Lakes and transitional waters 63 6.2.3 Transitional waters 63 6.2.4 Coastal waters 63 6.2.5 Gaps and uncertainties 63 6.3 Risk Assessment for groundwater 64

6.3.1 Groundwater quality 64 6.3.2 Groundwater quantity 64

7 Inventory of Protected Areas 68

8 Economic analysis 70

8.1 The 2013 DBA in the context of former economic analyses in the Danube River Basin 70 8.2 Update of the economic importance of water services and water uses 71

8.2.1 Characteristics of water services 72 8.2.2 Characteristics of water uses 75 8.3 Trend projections until 2021 77 8.4 Cost recovery 77

8.5 Data gaps and uncertainties 78 8.6 Summary and conclusion 79

9 Integration issues 80

9.1 Interlinkage between river basin management and flood risk management 80

9.2 Inland navigation and the environment 81 9.3 Sustainable hydropower 81 9.4 Sturgeons in the Danube River Basin District 82

9.5 Water scarcity and drought 84

9.6 Adaptation to climate change 86

10 Public information and consultation 88

11 Summary and conclusions 89

2013 Update of the Danube Basin Analysis Report iii


List of Acronyms

AEWS Accident Emergency Warning System HU Hungary AGR Agriculture IAS Invasive Alien Species

AL Albania ICPDR International Commission for the Protection of

the Danube River AQS Analytical Quality Control IED Industrial Emissions Directive

AT Austria IND Industry

AWB Artificial Water Body IPPCD Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive

BA Bosnia and Herzegovina IRR Irrigation

BAT Best Available Techniques IT Italy BDI Biological Diatom Index JDS Joint Danube Survey

JPM Joint Program of Measures

BG Bulgaria kg kilogram BLS Baseline Scenario km kilometre

BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand MA EG Monitoring and Assessment Expert Group

CAL Caloric Energy MD Moldova CAP Common Agricultural Policy ME Montenegro

CIS Common Implementation Strategy MK Macedonia

CH Switzerland mm millimetre COD Chemical Oxygen Demand N Nitrogen

CP Contracting Party ND Nitrate Directive

CR Cost Recovery NGO Non-Governmental Organization CZ Czech Republic P Phosphorus

CZI Czech multimetric index PE Population Equivalent

DBA Danube Basin Analysis PFRA Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment DE Germany PL Poland

DRB Danube River Basin PM EG Pressures and Measures Expert Group

DRBD Danube River Basin District PPP Purchase Power Parities DRBM Plan Danube River Basin District Management Plan RBM River Basin Management

DRW Drinking Water REACH Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals

DRPC Danube River Protection Convention RI Reference index

DSTR Danube Sturgeon Task Force rkm River kilometre E-PRTR European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register RO Romania

ERC Environmental and Resource Costs RS Republic of Serbia

EQS Environmental Quality Standard SBS BioContamination Index EQSD European Directive on Priority Substances SK Slovak Republic

EU European Union SI Slovenia EU MS EU Member States SPA balneology

EUSDR EU Strategy for the Danube Region SSD Sewage Sludge Directive

FD Flood Directive 2007/60/EC SWB Surface Water Body FIP Future Infrastructure Projects SWMI Significant Water Management Issues

FRMP Flood Risk Management Plan TN Total Nitrogen

GLC Global Land Cover TNMN Trans National Monitoring Network GW Ground Water TOC Total Organic Carbon

GWB Ground Water Body TP Total Phosphorus

ha hectare UA Ukraine HMWB Heavily Modified Water Body UWWTD Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive

HR Croatia WFD EU Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC

2013 Update of the Danube Basin Analysis Report iv


List of Tables

Table 1: Basic characteristics of the Danube River Basin District .................................................................................................................. 4 Table 2: Shares and population of countries in the DRB ................................................................................................................................ 4 Table 3: The Danube and its main tributaries (1st order tributaries with catchments > 4,000 km2) ................................................................. 7 Table 4: Share of land use categories in the DRBD ........................................................................................................................................ 8 Table 5: Definition of Danube section types................................................................................................................................................. 11 Table 6: Obligatory factors used in river typologies (System A and B) ........................................................................................................ 13 Table 7: Lakes selected for the basin-wide overview and their types ........................................................................................................... 17 Table 8: Types of transitional waters in the Danube River Basin District .................................................................................................... 18 Table 9: Types of coastal waters in the Danube River Basin District ........................................................................................................... 18 Table 10: Number of water bodies on rivers on the DRBD overview scale .................................................................................................... 19 Table 11: Criteria for the delineation of water bodies in rivers ....................................................................................................................... 19 Table 12: Nominated important transboundary groundwater bodies or groups of groundwater bodies in the DRBD .................................... 22 Table 13: Number of agglomerations and generated urban waste water loads in the Danube Basin (reference year: 2009/2010) .................. 26 Table 14: BOD and COD discharges via urban waste water in the Danube Basin (reference year: 2009/2010) ............................................. 26 Table 15: Organic pollution via direct industrial discharges in the DRBD according to different industrial sectors (reference year:

2010/2011) ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 28 Table 16: Nutrient pollution of surface waters via urban waste water in the Danube Basin (reference year: 2009/2010) .............................. 32 Table 17: Nutrient pollution of surface waters via direct industrial waste water discharges in the DRB (reference year: 2010/2011) ........... 34 Table 18: Nutrient emissions of the Danube basin under long-term average (2000-2008) hydrological conditions according to different

pathways ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 36 Table 19: Continuity interruption for fish migration: Criteria for pressure assessment .................................................................................. 45 Table 20: Number of river water bodies with wetlands/floodplains, having a reconnection potential beyond 2015 as well as relation to

overall number of water bodies ...................................................................................................................................................... 48 Table 21: Hydrological pressure types, provoked alterations and criteria for the respective pressure/impact analysis in the DRBD ............. 49 Table 22: Number of river water bodies significantly affected by hydrological alterations in relation to the overall water body number ...... 49 Table 23: Criteria for the collection of future infrastructure projects for the Danube River and other DRBD rivers with catchment areas

>4.000 km2 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 52 Table 24: Presence of significant hydromorphological alterations and chemical pressures affecting DRBD lakes ........................................ 54 Table 25: Risk assessment, status assessment and analysis of pressures for level A GWBs ........................................................................... 55 Table 26: Designated HMWBs and AWBs in the DRBD (expressed in rkm, number of water bodies and percentage)................................. 58 Table 27: Reasons for risk of failing Good Chemical Status in 2021 for the ICPDR GW-bodies .................................................................. 66 Table 28: Reasons for risk of failing Good Quantitative Status in 2021 for the ICPDR GW-bodies .............................................................. 67 Table 29: Overview on established registers for protected areas .................................................................................................................... 68 Table 30: General socio-economic indicators of Danube countries ................................................................................................................ 71 Table 31: Water production, wastewater services and connection rates in the Danube River Basin countries (if not indicated otherwise, the

data refers to the national level) ...................................................................................................................................................... 73 Table 32: Wastewater Collection in the Danube River Basin ......................................................................................................................... 74 Table 33: Sewage Treatment in the Danube River Basin................................................................................................................................ 74 Table 34: Production of main economic sectors (national level) .................................................................................................................... 75 Table 35: Hydropower generation in the Danube River Basin ....................................................................................................................... 76 Table 36: The importance of inland navigation in the Danube River Basin.................................................................................................... 77 Table 37: Overview Danube sturgeon species and their status and trend according to IUCN......................................................................... 82

2013 Update of the Danube Basin Analysis Report v


List of Figures

Figure 1: Three levels of management for WFD implementation in the DRBD showing the increase of the level of detail from Part A to Part B and C............................................................................................................................................................................................. 2

Figure 2: Danube countries share of the Danube River Basin in %.................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 3: Location of the Danube River Basin in Europe ................................................................................................................................ 6 Figure 4: Share of land use categories in % and total areas in km2 .................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 5: Danube section types; the dividing lines refer only to the Danube River itself ............................................................................... 12 Figure 6: Abstraction of drinking water by source in the Danube River Basin .............................................................................................. 21 Figure 7: Share of the collection and treatment stages in the total number of agglomerations and total population equivalents in the Danube

Basin (reference year: 2009/2010); left: agglomerations, right: population equivalents. ................................................................ 26 Figure 8: Share of the collection and treatment stages in the total population equivalent and total organic pollution of surface waters via

urban waste water in the Danube Basin (reference year: 2009/2010); left: BOD discharge, right: COD discharge ........................ 27 Figure 9: Share of the collection and treatment stages in the total population equivalents in the Danube countries (reference year:

2009/2010, absolute numbers on the top refer to PE) ..................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 10: Share of the collection and treatment stages in the total organic pollution of the surface waters via urban waste water in the

Danube countries (reference year: 2009/2010, absolute numbers on the top refer to tons BOD per year) ...................................... 28 Figure 11: Share of the industrial sectors in the total organic pollution via direct industrial discharges in the Danube Basin (reference year:

2010/2011) ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 12: Share of the industrial sectors in the total organic pollution via direct industrial discharges in the Danube countries (reference

year: 2010/2011, absolute numbers on the top refer to tons TOC per year) .................................................................................... 29 Figure 13: Share of the collection and treatment stages in the total nutrient pollution of surface waters via urban waste water in the Danube

Basin (reference year: 2009/2010); on the left: TN, on the right: TP .............................................................................................. 33 Figure 14: Share of the collection and treatment stages in the total nutrient pollution via urban waste water in the Danube countries

(reference year: 2009/2010); on the left: TN, on the right: TP (absolute numbers on the top refer to tons TN and TP per year) .... 33 Figure 15: Share of the industrial activities in the total nutrient pollution via direct industrial waste water discharges in the Danube Basin

(reference year: 2010/2011); on the left: TN, on the right: TP ........................................................................................................ 34 Figure 16: Share of the industrial activities in the total nutrient pollution via direct industrial waste water discharges in the Danube countries

(reference year 2010/2011); on the left: TN, on the right: TP (absolute numbers on the top refer to tons TN/TP per year) ........... 34 Figure 17: Share of pathways and sources in the overall TN emissions under long-term average (2000-2008) hydrological conditions in the

Danube Basin; on the left: pathways, on the right: sources............................................................................................................. 36 Figure 18: Share of the pathways in the overall TN emissions under long-term average (2000-2008) hydrological conditions in the Danube

countries ); on the left: pathways, on the right: sources (absolute numbers on the top refer to kg N per hectare and year) ............ 37 Figure 19: Share of the pathways and sources in the overall TP emissions under long-term average (2000-2008) hydrological conditions in

the Danube Basin; on the left: pathways, on the right: sources ....................................................................................................... 37 Figure 20: Share of the pathways in the overall TP emissions under long-term average (2000-2008) hydrological conditions in the Danube

countries); on the left: pathways, on the right: sources (absolute numbers on the top refer to kg P per hectare and year) .............. 38 Figure 21: Number of continuity interruptions and associated main uses ........................................................................................................ 45 Figure 22: Current situation on river continuity interruption for fish migration in the DRBD ......................................................................... 46 Figure 23: Morphological alteration to water bodies of the Danube River, the DRBD tributaries and all DRBD rivers .................................. 47 Figure 24: Area [ha] of DRBD wetlands/floodplains (>500 ha or of basin-wide importance) which are reconnected or with reconnection

potential .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 48 Figure 25: Number and length of impoundments in the DRBD ....................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 26: Number of significant water abstractions in the Danube River, DRBD tributaries and all DRBD rivers with catchment areas

>4,000 km2 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 51 Figure 27: Number of significant cases of hydropeaking in the DRBD ........................................................................................................... 51 Figure 28: HMWBs, AWBs and natural water bodies in the DRBD, indicated in number of river water bodies and length (River km) ......... 59 Figure 29: Risk assessment – Ecological Status ............................................................................................................................................... 62 Figure 30: Risk assessment – Chemical Status ................................................................................................................................................ 62 Figure 31: Risk by pressures ............................................................................................................................................................................ 63 Figure 32: Overview on number of WFD water relevant protected areas under the EU Habitats Directive and EU Birds Directive including

reported areas for Non EU MS ....................................................................................................................................................... 69 Figure 33: GDP per capita (PPP) of Danube countries .................................................................................................................................... 72 Figure 34: Potential critical habitat for A. gueldenstaedtii, A. nudiventris, A. ruthenus, A. stellatus and H. huso as identified by various

methods .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 84 Figure 35: Water scarcity and drought events in Europe in the period 2002 – 2011 (Source: ETC/ICM 2012) ............................................... 85

2013 Update of the Danube Basin Analysis Report vi


List of Maps

Map 1: Danube River Basin District Overview

Map 2: Annual Average Precipitation

Map 3: Annual Average Temperature

Map 4: Land Cover

Map 5: Ecoregions

Map 6: Delineated Surface Water Bodies

Map 7: Transboundary Groundwater Bodies of Basin-Wide Importance

Map 8: Nutrient Pollution from Point and Diffuse Sources – Nitrogen

Map 9: Nutrient Pollution from Point and Diffuse sources – Phosphorus

Map 10: Alterations of River Continuity for Fish Migration

Map 11: Morphological Alterations

Map 12: Wetlands/Floodplains with Reconnection Potential and Expected Improvement

Map 13: Hydrological Alterations – Impoundments

Map 14: Hydrological Alterations – Water Abstractions

Map 15: Hydrological Alterations – Hydropeaking and Altered Flow Regime

Map 16: Future Infrastructure Projects

Map 17: Site-specific Biological Contamination (SBC) Index of Invasive Alien Species on JDS3 sites

Map 18: Heavily Modified and Artificial Surface Water Bodies

Map 19: Transnational Monitoring Network – Surface Waters

Map 20: Risk Assessment - Ecological Status of Surface Water Bodies

Map 21: Risk Assessment - Chemical Status of Surface Water Bodies

Map 22: Risk Assessment Quantitative Status – Groundwater

Map 23: Risk Assessment Chemical Status – Groundwater

Map 24: Protected Areas

2013 Update of the Danube Basin Analysis Report vii


List of Annexes

Annex 1: Urban Wastewater Inventories

Annex 2: Industrial Emission Inventories

Annex 3: List of Infrastructure Projects

Annex 4: Risk Assessment for Surface Water Bodies

Annex 5: Groundwater: Future Characterisation of ICPDR GW Bodies and Significant Pressures

Annex 6: Inventory of Protected Areas

Annex 7: Economic Analysis – Synthesis of Questionnaires

Annex 8: Water Scarcity and Drought – Synthesis of Questionnaires

2013 Update of the Danube Basin Analysis Report 1


1 Introduction and background

1.1 Introduction

Rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters, as well as groundwater, are a vital natural resource of the

Danube River Basin: they provide drinking water, crucial habitats for many different types of wildlife,

and are an important resource for industry, agriculture, transport, energy production and recreation.

A significant proportion of this resource is environmentally damaged or under threat. Protecting and

improving the waters and environment of the Danube River Basin is substantial for achieving

sustainable development and is vital for the long term health, well-being and prosperity for the

population of the Danube region.

Being aware of this issue and due to the fact that the sustainable management of water resources

requires transboundary cooperation, the countries sharing the Danube River Basin agreed to jointly

work towards the achievement of this objective. The Danube River Protection Convention1 (DRPC),

signed in 1994, provides the legal framework for cooperation on water issues within the Danube basin,

which is the most international river basin in the world. All Danube countries with territories >2,000

km2 in the Danube River Basin are Contracting Parties to the DRPC: Austria (AT), Bosnia and

Herzegovina (BA), Bulgaria (BG), Croatia (HR), the Czech Republic (CZ), Germany (DE), Hungary

(HU), Moldova (MD), Montenegro (ME), Romania (RO), the Republic of Serbia (RS), the Slovak

Republic (SK), Slovenia (SI) and Ukraine (UA). In addition, the European Union (EU) is also a

Contracting Party to the DRPC. The International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River

(ICPDR) is the organisation which was established by the DRPC Contracting Parties to facilitate

multilateral cooperation and for implementing the DRPC.

Furthermore, in October 2000 the EU Water Framework Directive2 (WFD) was adopted and came into

force in December 2000. The purpose of the Directive is to establish a framework for the protection

and enhancement of the status of inland surface waters (rivers and lakes), transitional waters

(estuaries), coastal waters and groundwater, and to ensure a sustainable use of water resources. It aims

to ensure that all waters meet ‘good status’, which is the ultimate objective of the WFD, respectively

to avoid their deterioration.

EU Member States (EU MS) should aim to achieve ‘good status’ in all bodies of surface water and

groundwater by 2015, respectively by 2027 at the latest. Currently not all Danube countries are EU

MS and therefore not legally obliged to fulfil the WFD requirements. Five countries (BA, MD, ME,

RS and UA) are Non EU Member States (Non EU MS). Out of these Non EU MS, two countries (ME

and RS) carry the status of candidate countries. However, when the WFD was adopted in the year

2000, all countries cooperating under the DRPC decided to make all efforts to implement the Directive

throughout the whole basin.

The WFD establishes several integrative principles for water management, including public

participation in planning and the integration of economic approaches, beside aiming for the integration

of water management into other policy areas. It envisages a cyclical process where river basin

management plans are prepared, implemented and reviewed every six years. There are four distinct

elements to the river basin planning cycle: characterisation and assessment of impacts on river basin

districts; water status monitoring; the setting of environmental objectives; and the design and

implementation of the programme of measures needed to achieve them. These tasks have already been

accomplished for the Danube River Basin and are now updated according to the WFD cyclic

approach, allowing for an adaptive management of the basin.

1 Convention on Cooperation for the Protection and Sustainable Use of the Danube River (Sofia, 1994).

2 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action

in the field of water policy.

http://www.icpdr.org/main/icpdr/danube-river-protection-convention

http://www.icpdr.org/

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/index_en.html



1.2 Scope and objective

River basins, which are defined by their natural geographical and hydrological borders, are the logical

units for the management of waters. This innovative approach for water management is also followed

by the WFD. In case a river basin covers the territory of more than one country, an international river

basin district has to be created for the coordination of work in these districts.

The Danube and its tributaries, transitional waters, lakes, coastal waters and groundwater form the

Danube River Basin District (DRBD), which is illustrated in Map 1. The DRBD covers the Danube

River Basin (DRB), the Black Sea coastal catchments in Romanian territory and the Black Sea coastal

waters along the Romanian and partly Ukrainian coasts.

Due to reasons of efficiency, proportionality and in line with the principle of subsidiarity, the

management of the DRBD is based on the following three levels of coordination (see Figure 1):

Part A: International, basin-wide level – the Roof Level;

Part B: National level (managed through competent authorities) and/or the international

coordinated sub-basin level for selected sub-basins (Tisza, Sava, Prut, and Danube Delta);

Part C: Sub-unit level, defined as management units within the national territory.

Figure 1: Three levels of management for WFD implementation in the DRBD showing the increase of the level of detail from Part A to Part B and C

The investigations, analyses and findings for the basin-wide scale (Part A) focus on:

rivers with catchment areas >4,000 km2;3

lakes >100 km2;

transitional and coastal waters;

transboundary groundwater bodies of basin-wide importance.

The ICPDR serves as the coordinating platform to compile multilateral and basin-wide issues at Part A

(“Roof Level”4) of the DRBD. The information increases in detail from Part A to Parts B and C.

Waters with smaller catchment and surface areas are subject to planning at sub-basin/national (Part B),

respectively sub-unit level (Part C). All plans together provide the full set of information for the whole

DRBD, covering all waters (surface as well as groundwater), irrespectively of their size.

Since 2000 the following major milestones were achieved in managing the DRBD and in line with the

principles as set by the WFD:

2004 – Accomplishment of first Danube Basin Analysis Report according to WFD Article 5

2006 - Summary Report on Monitoring Programmes in the DRBD

3 The scale for measures related to point source pollution is smaller and therefore more detailed.

4 At the roof level (Part A), the ICPDR agreed on common criteria for analysis related to the DRBM Plan as the basis to address

transboundary water management issues. The level of detail of the roof level (Part A) is lower than that used in the national Part B Plans of

each EU MS.

Part ARoof Level

Part BNational/Sub-basin Level

Part CSub-Unit Level

Leve

l of

det

ail

http://www.icpdr.org/main/activities-projects/river-basin-management



2007 – Interim Overview on the Significant Water Management Issues in the DRBD

2009 – Adoption of the 1st Danube River Basin District Management Plan (1

st DRBM Plan)

2012 – Interim Report on the Implementation of the Joint Programme of Measures

As a first step in the preparation of the second WFD management cycle (2015-2021), a timetable,

work program and statement on consultation measures for the development of the 2nd

DRBM Plan

was adopted by the ICPDR in December 2012. Following, an updated Interim Overview on the

Significant Water Management Issues in the DRBD was developed according to WFD Article 14 by

the end of 2013 and therefore two years before the deadline for the finalisation of the 2nd

DRBM Plan

in 2015. Both documents were made available to the public, allowing for six months to comment in

writing in order to allow for active involvement and consultation.

The report in hand provides a characterisation of the river basin district, a review of the environmental

impact of human activity and an economic analysis of water use (WFD Article 5), which was first

accomplished for the DRBD in 2004 and which is now updated. Even though the WFD does not

require a coordinated update of the WFD Article 5 analysis for the Level A (Roof Level), the ICPDR

decided to elaborate this 2013 Update of the Danube Basin Analysis (2013 DBA) as a preparatory step

and analytical basis for the 2nd

DRBM Plan, which will be finalised by December 2015.

Therefore, the major objective of the 2013 DBA is to provide an update for the DRBD on the

Analysis of its characteristics,

Review of the impact of human activity on the status of surface waters and on groundwater, and

Economic analysis of water use

in line with WFD Article 5 and in accordance with the technical specifications set out in Annexes II

and III of the Directive.

1.3 Structure and contents

The 2013 DBA is based on one hand on the contents of the 2004 DBA but was updated and adapted

according to the structure and findings of the 1st DRBM Plan and latest developments. Beside a

general characterisation of the DRBD, the 2013 DBA provides updated information on the designation

of water bodies. The pressures analysis was adapted according to the Significant Water Management

Issues (SWMIs) Paper from 2007, the 1st DRBM Plan 2009, as well as the updated SWMI Paper from

2013, outlining the issues that affect directly or indirectly the status of surface water and

transboundary groundwater in the DRBD:

Pollution by organic substances

Pollution by nutrients

Pollution by hazardous substances

Hydromorphological alterations

These SWMIs were derived on the basis of the requirements of the EU WFD and mainly relate to

quality aspects. For transboundary groundwater bodies, both, the qualitative and quantitative issues are

addressed.

The impacts and risk assessment was elaborated for the time horizon 2021, which is the target date for

the 2nd

WFD management cycle 2015-2021 and therefore of key relevance for the elaboration of the

Joint Programme of Measures which will be part of the 2nd

DRBM Plan. Beside an updated inventory

of protected areas and economic analysis, a specific chapter on integration issues was elaborated,

providing information on the latest key developments in linking different water-related sectors.

http://www.icpdr.org/main/pp-2015

http://www.icpdr.org/main/pp-2015

http://www.icpdr.org/main/SWMI-PP

http://www.icpdr.org/main/SWMI-PP



2 The Danube River Basin District

2.1 General characterisation

The DRBD is the “most international” river basin in the world covering territories of 19 countries.

Those 14 countries with territories greater than 2,000 km2 in the DRB cooperate in the framework of

the ICPDR. With an area of 807,827 km2, the DRBD is the second largest in Europe. Some of its basic

characteristics are given in the following Table 1.

Table 1: Basic characteristics of the Danube River Basin District

DRBD area 807,827 km2

DRB area 801,463 km2

Danube countries with catchment areas

>2,000 km2

EU Member States (9): Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary,

Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Romania.

Non EU Member States (5): Bosnia & Herzegovina, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia and Ukraine

Danube countries with catchment areas

<2,000 km2 EU Member States (2): Italy, Poland

Non EU Member States (3): Albania, FYR Macedonia, Switzerland

Inhabitants approx. 81 Mio.

Length of Danube River 2,857 km

Average discharge approx. 6,500 m3/s (at the Danube mouth)

1st order tributaries with catchment areas

>4,000 km2

Lech, Naab, Isar, Inn, Traun, Enns, March/Morava, Svratka, Thaya/Dyje, Raab/Rába, Vah,

Hron, Ipel/Ipoly, Siò, Drau/Drava, Tysa/Tisza/Tisa, Sava, Timis/Tamiš, Velika Morava, Timok, Jiu, Iskar, Olt, Yantra, Arges, Ialomita, Siret, Prut.

Important lakes >100 km2 Neusiedler See/Fertö-tó, Lake Balaton, Yalpug-Kugurlui Lake System, Lake Razim

Important groundwater bodies 11 transboundary groundwater bodies of basin-wide importance are identified in the DRBD

Important water uses and services Water abstraction (industry, irrigation, household supply), drinking water supply, wastewater

discharge (municipalities, industry), hydropower generation, navigation, dredging and gravel

exploitation, recreation, various ecosystem services

The DRBD is not only characterised by its size and large number of countries but also by its diverse

landscapes and the major socio-economic differences that exist. Table 2 provides an overview on the

shares of countries of the Danube River Basin and the population within the DRB.

Table 2: Shares and population of countries in the DRB

Country Code Coverage in DRB (km2) Share of DRB (%) Percentage of territory

within the DRB (%) Population within the

DRB (Mio.)

Albania AL 126 < 0.1 0.01 < 0.01

Austria* AT 80,423 10.0 96.1 7.7

Bosnia and

Herzegovina*

BA 36,636 4.6 74.9 2.9

Bulgaria* BG 47,413 5.9 43.0 3.5

Croatia* HR 34,965 4.4 62.5 3.1

Czech Republic*

CZ 21,688 2.9 27.5 2.8

Germany* DE 56,184 7.0 16.8 9.4

Hungary* HU 93,030 11.6 100.0 10.1

Italy IT 565 < 0.1 0.2 0.02

Macedonia MK 109 < 0.1 0.2 < 0.01

Moldova* MD 12,834 1.6 35.6 1.1

Montenegro* ME 7,075 0.9 51.2 0.2

Poland PL 430 < 0.1 0.1 0.04

Romania* RO 232,193 29.0 97.4 21.7

Serbia* RS 81,560 10.2 92.3 7.55

Slovak Republic*

SK 47,084 5.9 96.0 5.2

Slovenia* SI 16,422 2.0 81.0 1.7

Switzerland CH 1,809 0.2 4.3 0.02

Ukraine* UA 30,520 3.8 5.0 2.7

Total 801,463 100 - 81.00

*) Contracting Party to the ICPDR

5 The data from Serbia do not include any data from the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija.



Figure 2: Danube countries share of the Danube River Basin in %

2.2 Geographical characterisation

The Danube River Basin covers an area of approximately 10% of Continental Europe and is the

second largest river basin in Europe after the Volga (the DRB covers 801,463 km2 and the DRBD

807,827 km2). It lies to the west of the Black Sea in Central and South-eastern Europe (see Figure 3).

To the west and northwest the Danube River Basin borders on the Rhine River Basin, in the north on

the Weser, Elbe, Odra and Vistula River Basins, in the north-east on the Dniestr, and in the south on

the catchments of the rivers flowing into the Adriatic Sea and the Aegean See.

Due to its geologic and geographic conditions the Danube River Basin can be divided into 3 main

parts:

The Upper Danube Basin reaches from the sources in the Black Forest Mountains to the Gate of

Devín, to the east of Vienna, where the foothills of the Alps, the Small Carpathians and the Leitha

Mountains meet. The area covers in the north the Swabian and Frankonian Alb, parts of the

Oberpfälzer, the Bavarian and the Bohemian Forests, the Austrian Mühl- and Waldviertel, and the

Bohemian-Moravian Uplands. South of the Danube lie the Swabian-Bavarian-Austrian Alpine

Foothills as well as large parts of the Alps up to the water divide in the crystalline Central Alps.

The Middle Danube Basin covers a large area reaching from the Gate of Devín to the impressive

gorge of the Danube at the Iron Gate, which divides the Southern Carpathian Mountains in the

north and the Balkan Mountains in the south. The Middle Danube Basin is confined by the

Carpathians in the north and the east, and Karnic Alps and the Karawankas, the Julian Alps and

the Dinaric Mountains in the west and south. This circle of mountains embraces the Pannonian

Plains and the Transsylvanian Uplands.

The Lower Danube Basin covers the Romanian-Bulgarian Danube sub-basin downstream of

Cazane Gorge and the sub-basins of the Siret and Prut River. It is confined by the Carpathians in

the north, by the Bessarabian Upland Plateau in the east, and by the Dobrogea and Balkan

Mountains in the south.

Due to this richness in landscape the Danube River Basin shows a tremendous diversity of habitats

through which rivers and stream flow including glaciated high-gradient mountains, forested midland

mountains and hills, upland plateaus and through plains and wet lowlands, i.e. the Danube Delta, near

sea level.

Austria 10%

Bosnia and Herzegovina 4.6%

Bulgaria 5.9%

Croatia 4.4%

Czech Republic 2.9%

Germany 7%

Hungary 11.6%

Moldova 1.6%Montenegro 0.9%

Romania 29%

Serbia 10.2%

Slovak Republic 5.9%

Slovenia 2%

Switzerland 0.2% Ukraine 3.8%Others < 0,1%



Figure 3: Location of the Danube River Basin in Europe

2.3 Climate and hydrology

Due to its large extension from west to east, and diverse relief, the Danube River Basin also shows

great differences in climate. The upper regions in the west show strong influence from the Atlantic

climate with high precipitation, whereas the eastern regions are affected by Continental climate with

lower precipitation and typical cold winters. In the area of the Drava and Sava, influences from the

Mediterranean climate, can also be detected.

The heterogeneity of the relief, especially the differences in the extent of exposure to the

predominantly westerly winds, as well as the differences in altitude diversify this general climate

pattern. This leads to distinct landscape regions showing differences in climatic conditions and in the

biota, e.g. the vegetation.

Pronounced average air temperature differences are determined by the extensive area and elongated

character of the DRB from west to east. Average annual air temperature within the basin ranges from -

6°C to + 12°C (see Map 3). The lowest value originates from Sonnblick (in Austria), the highest mean

annual temperature was observed in the northern part of the Hungarian Lowland and at the Black Sea

coast. In the entire Danube River Basin July is the warmest month, January being the coldest one.

The Alps in the west, the Dinaric-Balkan mountain chains in the south and the Carpathian mountain

bow in the eastern centre are distinctive morphological and climatic regions and barriers. These

mountain chains receive the highest annual precipitation and the Danube River Basin is therefore

benefiting from several “Water Towers”, while the inner and outer basins are relatively dry. The



precipitation ranges from < 500 mm to > 2,000 mm based on differences in the regions (see Map 2).

This in turn has strong effects on the surface run-off and the discharge in the streams.

The Danube rises in the Black Forest in Germany at a height of about 1,000 m a.s.l., flows

predominantly to the south-east and reaches the Black Sea after approximately 2,857 km, dividing into

the 3 main branches, the Chilia, the Sulina, and the Sf. Gheorghe Branch. At its mouth the Danube has

an average discharge of about 6,460 m3/s. The Danube Delta lies in Romania and partly in Ukraine

and is a unique “UNESCO World Heritage Site”. The entire protected area covers 675,000 ha

including floodplains, natural lakes and marine areas. The Danube is the largest tributary into the

Black Sea.

Some of the largest tributaries of the Danube are characterised in Table 3 below, including information

on their key hydrologic characteristics.

Table 3: The Danube and its main tributaries (1st order tributaries with catchments > 4,000 km2)

River Enters the Danube at Length in km Size of catchment in km2 Average discharge in m3/s

Danube - 2,857 801,463 6,460

Lech Marxheim (near Donauwörth), Germany 254 4,125 115

Naab Regensburg, Germany 191 5,530 49

Isar Near Deggendorf, Germany 283 8,964 174

Inn Passau, Germany 515 26,130 735

Traun Near Linz, Austria 153 4,257 150

Enns Mauthausen, Austria 254 6,185 200

Morava/March Devín, Slovakia 329 26,658 119

Raab/Rába Győr, Hungary 311 10,113 88

Vah Komárno, Slovakia 398 18,296 161

Hron Near Štúrovo, Slovakia 278 5,463 55

Ipel/Ipoly Near Szob, Hungary 197 5,108 22

Sió Near Szekszárd, Hungary 121 9,216 39

Drau/Drava Near Osijek, Croatia 893 41,238 577

Tysa/Tisza/Tisa Near Titel, Serbia 966 157,186 794

Sava Belgrade, Serbia 861 95,719 1,564

Tamis/Timis Near Pančevo, Serbia 359 10,147 47

Morava (RS) Near Smederevo, Serbia 430 37,444 232

Timok Bulgarian-Serbian border 180 4,630 31

Jiu Near Gighera, Romania 339 10,080 86

Iskar Gigen, Pleven Province, Bulgaria 368 8,684 54

Olt Turnu Mugurele, Romania 615 24,050 174

Yantra Svishtov, Bulgaria 285 7,879 47

Arges Olteniţa, Romania 350 12,550 71

Ialomita Near Hârşova, Romania 417 10,350 45

Siret Galaţi, Romania 559 47,610 240

Prut Near Reni, Ukraine 950 27,540 110

2.4 Land cover and land use

The Danube basin is characterized by a large variety of anthropogenic and natural features, which are

important in terms of their effect on the river systems but also groundwater, e.g. for diffuse nutrient

inputs. Map 4 provides an overview on the differing land cover in the DRBD based on the latest

available CORINE Land Cover data from 2006, categorised into artificial surfaces like urban areas,

arable lands and permanent crops which are in use for agricultural production, pastures and

heterogeneous agricultural areas, forests, open spaces with little or no vegetation like in high

mountainous areas, as well as wetlands and water bodies like rivers and lakes. For Ukraine and

Moldova data from the Global Land Cover 2000 Project (GLC2000) was used.



The map illustrates the close correlation between land cover and topography, with forests, pastures and

open spaces mainly located in the hilly and mountainous areas of the Alps, Carpathians and Balkan

mountains. Areas suitable for agricultural purposes are for instance especially located north of the

Alps, the middle Danube in the area of the Great Hungarian Plain, as well as the lower Danube region

in Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova and parts of Ukraine.

Figure 4 illustrates the shares of different land use categories for Danube countries territories located

within the DRBD and the DRBD as a whole, as well as the respective areas for the different countries.

The figures for the whole DRBD are provided in Table 4. Forests and transitional woodland scrub, as

well as arable land and permanent crops, are the two main land use categories with both together

covering an area of around 70% of the basin. With approximately 20% a further substantial share of

the total area is covered by pastures and heterogeneous agricultural areas. Wetlands and water bodies

cover around 2% of the DRBD.

Table 4: Share of land use categories in the DRBD

Land use category Area of the DRBD in km2 Share of the DRBD in %

Artificial surfaces 39,788 4.9

Arable lands and permanent crops 271,167 33.6

Pastures and heterogeneous agricultural areas 162,919 20.2

Forest and transitional woodland scrub 287,361 35.6

Shrub and open spaces with little or no vegetation 28,425 3.5

Wetlands 5,259 0.7

Water bodies 11,961 1.5

Figure 4: Share of land use categories in % and total areas in km2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

AT BA BG CZ DE HR HU MD ME RO RS SI SK UA DRBD

Water Bodies

Wetlands

Scrub and open spaces withlittle or no vegetation

Forest and transitionalwoodland shrub

Pastures andHeterogeneous Agricultural Areas

Arable Lands andPermanent Crops

Artificial Surfaces



0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

220,000

240,000

AT BA BG CZ DE HR HU MD ME RO RS SI SK UA

Water Bodies

Wetlands

Scrub and open spaces withlittle or no vegetation

Forest and transitionalwoodland shrub

Pastures andHeterogeneous AgriculturalAreas

Arable Lands andPermanent Crops

Artificial Surfaces



3 Water bodies in the Danube River Basin District

According to Art. 2 (10) of the EU WFD a body of surface water means a discrete and significant

element of surface water such as a lake, a reservoir, a stream, river or canal, part of a stream, river or

canal, a transitional water or a stretch of coastal water.

Body of groundwater means a distinct volume of groundwater within an aquifer or aquifers.

The characterization and risk assessment of surface and groundwater is carried out on the level of

water bodies.

3.1 Surface waters: rivers, lakes, transitional waters and coastal waters

This subchapter provides a brief overview of the identification of the location and boundaries of

bodies of surface water on the level A as well as a characterisation of all those bodies. It focuses

mostly on changes and progress achieved since the first Danube Basin Analysis (Roof Report) in

2004.

3.1.1 Identification of surface water categories

The following surface waters have been selected for the basin-wide overview and are therefore dealt

with in this update of the Danube Basin Analysis:

rivers with catchment areas > 4 000 km²

lakes > 100 km²

transitional and coastal waters.

These surface waters are shown on the Danube River Basin District overview map (see Map 1).

3.1.2 Surface water types and reference conditions

To make a proper assessment of surface water bodies within a river basin district the water bodies

shall be differentiated according to type so that always like with like can be compared. A common

typology for the Danube River has been developed jointly by the Danube countries. For each surface

water category, the relevant surface water bodies within the river basin district need to be

differentiated according to type (Annex II 1.1 (ii) WFD). The Directive foresees the use of System A

(a defined set of descriptors) or System B (a set of obligatory and a set of optional descriptors) for the

development of surface water typologies.

Most of the national typologies of the Danube countries are based on the System B. All typologies

show a good degree of coherence.

The implementation of WFD has progressed since the first analysis was prepared. Germany, Austria,

the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania had developed

their typologies before the first Article 5 report had been prepared in 2004. Czech Republic and

Bulgaria however revised their national typology in 2009 and in 2010 respectively. Romania has also

revised and updated its typology. In Bosnia and Herzegovina a preliminary typology for rivers with

catchment areas > 4,000 km2 was developed in 2006. In Croatia a new typology was developed for the

RBM Plan 2013 – 2015. Ukraine has developed in 2011 the typology for the Tisza River Basin based

on system A for rivers with catchment area > 500 km2. Serbia has developed a typology for rivers

with catchment sizes greater than 100 km2 (2006). For the purpose of developing Assessment Systems,

the surface water types were divided into six general groups (2011). Moldova started the development

of its typology.



3.1.2.1 Ecoregions in the Danube River Basin District

Fauna and flora show different geographical distributions depending on the natural characteristics of

the environment. To account for these differences the WFD requests the definition of surface water

types and the development of type-specific ecological classification systems to assess the status of

water bodies. Ecoregions are regions of similar geographical distribution of flora and fauna species.

They are therefore an important basis for the definition of biologically relevant surface water types.

These have been delineated by ILLIES and are used in Annex XI WFD. A detailed description of the

ecoregions in the Danube River Basin District is provided in the DBA 2004 (see also Map 5).

3.1.2.2 Rivers

3.1.2.2.1 Typology of the Danube River

The typology of the Danube River has been developed in a joint activity by the countries sharing the

Danube River for the first DBA in 2004. The Danube typology therefore constitutes a harmonised

system used by all these countries. The Danube typology was based on a combination of abiotic

factors of System A and System B. The most important factors are ecoregion, mean water slope,

substratum composition, geomorphology and water temperature.

Ten Danube section types were identified (see Table 5). The ten Danube section types are defined

below. The morphological and habitat characteristics are outlined for each section type. In order to

ensure that the Danube section types are biologically meaningful, these were validated with biological

data collected during the first Joint Danube Survey in 2001.

Table 5: Definition of Danube section types

Section Type Name of the Section Type from - to

1 Upper course of the Danube rkm 2786: confluence of Brigach and Breg – rkm 2581: Neu Ulm

2 Western Alpine Foothills Danube rkm 2581: Neu Ulm – rkm 2225: Passau

3 Eastern Alpine Foothills Danube rkm 2225: Passau – rkm 2001: Krems

4 Lower Alpine Foothills Danube rkm 2001: Krems – rkm 1807: Gönyű/Kližská Nemá

5 Hungarian Danube Bend rkm 1807: Gönyű/ Kližská Nemá – rkm 1497: Baja

6 Pannonian Plain Danube rkm 1497: Baja – rkm 1075 : Bazias

7 Iron Gate (Cazane) Danube rkm 1075: Bazias – rkm 943: Turnu Severin

8 Western Pontic (Cazane-Calarasi)

Danube

rkm 943: Turnu Severin – rkm 375.5: Chiciu/Silistra

9 Eastern Wallachian (Calarasi-

Isaccea) Danube

rkm 375.5: Chiciu/Silistra – rkm 100: Isaccea

10 Danube Delta* rkm 100: Isaccea – rkm 0 on Chilia arm, rkm 0 on Sulina arm and

rkm 0 on Sf. Gheorghe arm

* Within this section the Danube divides into the three main branches of the Danube Delta.



Figure 5: Danube section types; the dividing lines refer only to the Danube River itself

3.1.2.2.2 Typology of the tributaries in the Danube River Basin District

The typologies of the Danube tributaries were developed by the countries individually. Stream types

relevant on transboundary water courses were bilaterally harmonised with the neighbours. Information

on river typologies is available from Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Hungary,

Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Romania and Moldova. Most countries

in the Danube River Basin (Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia,

Romania, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina) have applied System B (Annex II, 1.2.1 WFD). The

Slovak Republic and Ukraine have used System A.

The common factors used mostly in DRB typologies are ecoregion, altitude, catchment area and

geology (Table 6). In the Czech typology the ecoregions are not included, instead of ecoregion sea

drainage area (= river basin) is used. In Slovenia no altitude classes were used in river typology.

Table 6 gives an overview of the class boundaries used by the DRB countries for the common

descriptors altitude, catchment area and geology. From this table it is obvious that the class boundaries

have a good degree of coherence throughout the DRBD however they are tailored to the individual

conditions in the countries.

Countries using System B have used a number of optional factors to further describe the river types.

River discharge, mean substratum composition and mean water slope are most frequently used.



Table 6: Obligatory factors used in river typologies (System A and B)

Descriptor Country Class boundaries

Altitude

Germany 0-200 m 200-800m > 800 m

Austria 0-200 m 200-500 m 500-800 m 800-1600 m > 1600 m

Czech R. 0-200 m 200-500 m 500-800 m > 800 m

Slovak R. 0-200 m 200-500 m 500-800 m > 800 m

Hungary 0-200 m 200-350 m > 350 m

Croatia 0-200 m 200 - 600 m 600-800 m

Slovenia no altitude classes were used in river typology

Serbia 0-200 m 200-500 m > 500 m

Romania 0-200 m 200-500 m 500-800 m > 800 m

Bulgaria 0-200 m 200-800 m > 800 m

Bosnia and

Herzegovina < 200 m 200-500 m 500-800 m > 800 m

Moldova 0-200 m 200-800m > 800 m

Montenegro

Ukraine < 200 m 200-500 m 500-800 m

Catchment

area

Germany 10-100 km² 100-1000 km² 1000-10,000 km² > 10,000

km²

Austria 10-100 km² 100-500 km² 500-1000 km² 1000-2500 km² 2500-

10,000 km²

Czech R. Not applied anymore

Slovak R.6 10-100 km² 100 – 1 000 km² 1000 – 10000 km2

Hungary 10-200 km² 100-2000 km² 1000-12,000 km² > 10,000 km²

Croatia 10-100 km2 100-1000 km² 1000-10,000 km² > 10,000

km²

Slovenia <10 km2 10-100 km² 100-1000 km² 1000-10,000 km² > 10,000 km²

Serbia 10-100 km² 100-1000 km² 1000-4000 km² 4000-10,000 km²

>

10,000 km²

Romania 10-100 km² 100-1000 km² 1000-10,000 km² > 10,000 km²

Bulgaria 10-100 km² 100-1000 km² 1000-10,000 km²

Bosnia and

Herzegovina <100 km² 100-1000 km² 1000-4000 km²

4000-

10,000 km² > 10,000 km²

Moldova 10-100 km² 100-1000 km² 1000-10,000 km² > 10,000 km²

Montenegro

Ukraine 10-100 km² 100-1000 km² 1000-10,000 km² > 10,000 km²

Geology

Germany siliceous calcareous organic

Austria cristalline tertiary and quaternary sediments flysch and helveticum limestone

and dolomite

Czech R. crystalline and vulcanites sandstones, mudstones and quaternary

Slovak R. mixed

Hungary siliceous calcareous organic

Croatia siliceous calcareous organic mixed

Slovenia siliceous calcareous flysch7

Serbia siliceous calcareous organic

Romania siliceous calcareous organic

Bulgaria siliceous calcareous organic mixed

Bosnia and

Herzegovina siliceous calcareous organic

Moldova siliceous calcareous organic

Montenegro

Ukraine siliceous calcareous organic

6 The river typology is not based on strict boundaries of catchment area. Rivers > 1,000 km² make up individual types; definition of types for

smaller rivers is based on ecoregion, altitude and geology.

7 not for the tributaries in the Danube river basin district



3.1.2.2.3 Reference conditions

Annex II 1.3 (i) WFD requires that for each surface water type, type-specific hydromorphological and

physico-chemical conditions shall be established representing the values of the hydromorphological

and physico-chemical quality elements specified for that surface water type at high ecological status.

Type-specific biological reference conditions shall be established, representing the values of the

biological quality elements for that surface water type at high ecological status. This step is very

important for the assessment of the water status as it provides the basis for establishing the

classification scheme.

On the basin-wide level, the Danube countries have agreed on general criteria as a common base for

the definition of reference conditions. These have then been further developed on the national level

into type-specific reference conditions. The definition of reference conditions was based on the

following approaches:

spatially based approach using data from monitoring sites, or

approach based on predictive modelling, or

definition of temporally based reference conditions using either historical data or

palaeoreconstruction,

or use of expert judgement (where none of the above methods was possible).

The national approaches applied for the development of reference conditions in the Danube countries

are presented below.

Germany:

The assessment of the biological quality elements is based on the reference conditions, which are

defined for each of the river types. In addition, for fish species zoogeographic and longitudinal factors

are taken into account. Reference conditions usually refer to species composition and abundance of the

biological quality element as well as to biomass for phytoplankton. The assessment methods are

modular and in principle consider the following metric groups depending on the river type: tolerance

index, taxonomic composition and abundance, diversity as well as functional metrics.

A description of the characteristics of the type specific biocoenosis can be found in fact sheets for

each river type (for more information see: http://www.wasserblick.net/servlet/is/18727).

Austria:

Type specific reference conditions for all biological assessment methods and for the hydromorphology

have been established by using reference sites. Where pristine reference sites were not available

historical data on reference communities, modelling approaches or expert judgement have been used.

The typology and the reference values for all the metrics used in the assessment methods for the

biological quality elements are set down in a legal ordinance and additionally published in detailed

guideline papers (available at: http://wisa.lebensministerium.at/)

Czech Republic:

The description of type-specific biological reference conditions is generally based on network of

reference and the best available sites.

Reference conditions for the benthic macroinvertebrates are based on reference values of metrics.

Type-specific or site-specific reference values of assessment metrics in multimetric system were

defined. The following variables are used for assessments: taxonomic composition, abundance,

diversity, and the ratio ‘sensitive to insensitive taxa’.

Type-specific reference fish taxa were defined based on the historical knowledge and expert

judgement. Consecutively a composition of the type-specific reference fish taxocoenoses were

expressed as reference values of several metrics. These metrics are component of the Czech

multimetric index (CZI), which is used for ecological status assessment.

http://www.wasserblick.net/servlet/is/18727

http://wisa.lebensministerium.at/



Reference conditions for phytobenthos were described as the site specific reference values of the

Czech saprobic-trophic index; no type-specific reference taxocoenoses were defined. For macrophytes,

the taxonomic composition of the reference communities was defined.

Phytoplankton is used only for an assessment of lowland rivers. The reference conditions were

defined as reference values of assessment metrics. The following metrics were used: the relative

abundance of bacillariophycea, cyanophyceae, and chlorophycea, and the content of chlorophyll-a.

Taxonomic composition, abundance and biomass are included as indicative parameters.

Type-specific physico-chemical conditions were defined using a dataset of reference and the best

available sites or by expert judgement.

Slovakia:

Type specific reference values for benthic invertebrates and benthic diatoms (phytobenthos) have been

developed using multimetric system reflecting to main stressors with regards to the species

composition and abundance. The results from the reference sites (mainly for small and middle size

Carpathian rivers), modelling (large rivers) as well as the expert judgement (small and middle size

lowland rivers) were used.

As for the macrophytes the results from the reference sites (small and middle size rivers), modelling

(large rivers) as well as the expert judgement (small and middle size lowland rivers) were used.

With regards to the classification method the reference values for phytoplankton have been developed

for the lowland large rivers only. The metrics as the ratio of different groups of species, abundance

and biomass were set by predictive modelling and expert judgement.

Fish reference values have been derived using virtual fish communities for each river type based on

the historical knowledge and expert judgement.

Hungary:

Type-specific reference conditions for biological, physico-chemical and hydromorphological quality

elements have been established using statistical analysis of the data from best available sites or of the

historical data by some parameters/types (physico-chemical and phytoplankton data last 30 years in

large and middle size rivers), additionally expert judgement.

Reference values and communities were defined type-specific for biological groups, based on

multimetric indexes by phytoplankton, phytobentos, macroinvertebrates and RI index by macrophytes

refer to adequate stressors with regards to the taxonomic composition (e.g. functional groups, ratio of

sensitive/insensitive species, ratio of type-specific indicator species, diversity) and abundance.

Reference-conditions, type-specific species-composition, hydromorphological conditions and

reference-values for indexes were presented in detail in the background document 5.1 of the RBMP

(www.vizeink.hu) and Methodological Guidelines for biological elements.

Some river and lake-types have new datasets and reference conditions will be reviewed and

complemented for this types and for fish group in the 2nd

cycle of RBMP.

Croatia:

Type specific reference values for benthic invertebrates (saprobic index) have been defined in

Regulation on Water Quality Standard

Slovenia:

Type-specific reference values were defined for each metric used in the ecological assessment system.

Values were defined for metrics based on benthic invertebrates, phytobenthos and macrophytes and

fish data. Different approaches were used to derive an ecological type specific reference value. Most

often a spatial approach with reference sites was used, whereas in some lowland streams and large

rivers a simple modelling approach in combination with expert judgement was used to derive

reference values (e.g. extrapolation).

Type-specific hydromorphological values and physico-chemical values were defined for each

parameter used in the ecological assessment system. Type-specific values were derived using spatial



approach with reference sites, whereas for some rivers a simple modelling approach in combination

with expert judgement was used to derive type-specific values.

Serbia:

To date, type-specific reference conditions have been developed for metrics that use benthic

macroinvertebrate, algae (phytobenthos and phytoplankton) and aquatic macrophyte data. Reference

conditions and values for particular indices were developed based on a combination of data derived

from reference sites, best available sites, historical data and modeling, but also expert judgment. The

indices used for developing reference conditions/values and the assessment system use both,

taxonomical composition and taxa abundance of biological quality elements.

Bosnia and Herzegovina:

In Bosnia and Herzegovina the delineation of reference conditions has not been carried out yet.

Romania:

The description of reference conditions for rivers is based on reference values of metrics (multimetric

indexes) for relevant quality elements. The following variables were used in Romania: diversity,

EPT_I index, OCH index, IGF (functional groups index), number of families, REO/LIM index and

type-specific values for the Saprobic index. For fish the EFI+ index has been applied. For

phytobenthos Romania has defined type-specific reference values for number of taxa, diversity index,

biological diatoms index (BDI), and for the Saprobic Index. For phytoplankton, type-specific

reference values were set for the Saprobic index, chlorophyll “a”, diversity index, numerical

abundance of Bacillariophyceae Index and number of taxa.

Bulgaria:

The description of the reference conditions is generally based on reference values of the relevant

metrics/indexes for each quality element. Type-specific reference values of assessment metrics were

defined.

For macroinvertebrates the reference values for the assessment index (Biotic index) have been defined.

The metrics included in the Biotic index are taxonomic composition and abundance.

For macrophytes - the Reference index (RI) is used. RI represents the ratio between type-specific

sensitive species, dominant at reference conditions, to other species of macrophytes. In this way the

assessment of the variations in macrophyte community at reference conditions can be performed.

For phytobenthos, the reference values for the IPS were defined. The values for high ecological status

describe the reference conditions of the types. The index uses all occurring taxa (species) in the

sample.

Fish fauna is being assessed according to - specific criteria and metrics specifically designed for the

conditions in Bulgaria. There are type-specific criteria describing the reference conditions.

The values corresponding to high ecological status of all these metrics/indexes are being used for the

description of the reference conditions. Type-specific reference values have been developed using the

old data from reference sites (priority for the macroinvertebrates) as well as expert judgment

Moldova:

Moldova did not establish yet the type-specific biological reference conditions representing the values

of the biological quality elements for a given surface water type at high ecological status. The

preparatory work is ongoing.

Ukraine:

Setting of reference conditions has not been finalized yet.



3.1.2.3 Lakes

3.1.2.3.1 Lake types

The lake typologies were developed individually in the Danube countries. Four lakes have been

selected for the basin-wide overview. These are situated in Austria, Hungary, Romania and Ukraine.

Only one lake is transboundary in nature (see Table 6). More detailed information is provided in DBA

2004.

Table 7 indicates the lake types for lakes relevant on the basin-wide scale. All lake types are

calcareous by geology and dominated by sandy and muddy substratum. They are all oblong in shape

and very shallow. Lacul Razim / Razelm is less than 3 metres deep and has monomictic mixing

characteristics. Neusiedler See / Fertő-tó is characterised as the last and most western member of the

so-called steppe-type lakes in Europe. It has a mean water depth of 1.1 m and is holomictic. Lake

Balaton is a very large steppe-type lake. It has a mean water depth of 3.6 m and is polymictic. A

typological description of Ozero Ialpug is not available.

Table 7: Lakes selected for the basin-wide overview and their types

Lakes > 100 km2 Country(s) Type of lake Ecoregion Altitude

class Depth class Size class Geology

Neusiedler See /

Fertő-tó AT, HU

large shallow,

salinic steppe-

type lake

11 lowland:

< 200 m < 3 m > 100 km² calcareous

Lake Balaton HU

very large

shallow

steppe-type

lake

11 lowland:

< 200 m 3-15 m > 100 km² calcareous

Ozero Ialpug UA n.a. 12 n.a. n.a. > 100 km² n.a.

Lacul Razim /

Razelm RO

lowland, very

shallow,

calcareous,

very large

lake type

12 lowland:

< 200 m < 3 m > 100 km² calcareous

3.1.2.3.2 Reference conditions

The reference conditions were developed individually by the countries. The methods most frequently

applied were the use of historical data, expert judgement and spatially based methods. Hungary also

used historical data and palaeo-reconstruction for phytoplankton and physico-chemical conditions to

define reference conditions in its lakes.

A comparison of reference conditions reveals that similar approaches are being applied. All countries

are basing their assessment on species composition, abundance and the diversity of species. In some

cases, additional parameters were used (e.g. age structure, biomass, ratio of sensitive to insensitive

species).

3.1.2.4 Transitional waters

“Transitional waters are bodies of surface water in the vicinity of river mouths, which are partly saline

in character as a result of their proximity to coastal waters but which are substantially influenced by

freshwater flows” (Art. 2 (6) WFD). The transitional waters of the DRBD are located in Romania and

Ukraine. No information on transitional water was received from Ukraine. On the Romanian coast of

the Black Sea the lakes Razim and Sinoe are originally marine waters that have gradually been cut off

from the Black Sea by sandbars. In the 1970s the remaining connection to the Black Sea has been

closed through hydrological works. Today, Lake Sinoe is a transitional water (lagoon), which still

receives marine water at very high tides. Lake Razim is no longer influenced by marine water and has

turned into a freshwater lake. For the development of the typology of transitional waters System B was

applied.



The transitional waters are differentiated into lacustrine and marine transitional waters (see Table 8).

The marine transitional waters are strongly influenced by the Danube, which has an average discharge

of about 6,500 m³/s. The freshwater of the Danube is generally transported southwards along the

Romanian coast with the predominant southward coastal current. A detailed description of the

transitional surface water types and their reference conditions are given in the National report of

Romania.

Table 8: Types of transitional waters in the Danube River Basin District

Transitional water Type

Lake Sinoe Transitional lacustrine type

Black Sea coastal waters (northern sector) – Chilia

mouth to Periboina Transitional marine type

3.1.2.5 Coastal waters

The coastal waters of the DRBD are located in the coastal area of the Black Sea in Romania and

Ukraine but no information on coastal water was received from Ukraine. For the development of the

typology of coastal waters the System B was applied in Romania.

Two coastal water types have been defined for the coastal waters in the DRBD. A detailed description

of the types as well as the definition of the reference conditions is given in the National report of

Romania (Part B).

Table 9: Types of coastal waters in the Danube River Basin District

Coastal water Type

Periboina – Singol Cape Sandy shallow coastal water

Singol Cape – Vama veche Mixed shallow coastal water

3.1.3 Identification of surface water bodies

59 water bodies have been identified on the Danube River, and 644 water bodies have been identified

on the tributaries with catchments >4000km2. Similar approaches for the delineation of water bodies in

the Danube countries have been applied.

Water bodies were identified and updated based on the analysis of the pressures and monitoring data.

The water bodies described here refer to the Danube River Basin District overview map (see Map 1),

i.e. to those relevant on the basin-wide level. All other water bodies are dealt with in detail in the

National Reports (Part B). Moldova has identified the preliminary number of the water bodies in the

Danube River Basin District focussing on the Prut River Basin and in Ukraine the water bodies were

identified in the Tisza basin. Bosnia and Herzegovina has not finalised the identification of water

bodies.

3.1.3.1 Water bodies in rivers

59 water bodies have been identified on the Danube River. Two of these are shared by the Slovak

Republic and Hungary, one is shared by Germany and Austria, one is shared by the Slovak Republic

and Austria, two are shared by Serbia and Croatia, three by Serbia and Romania and one is shared by

Bulgaria and Romania. The number of water bodies on the Danube varies per country, e.g. on the

German part of the Danube 17 water bodies were delineated, on the Bulgarian part only one. This

means that the size of the water bodies also varies significantly. The smallest water body on the

Danube is only 7 km long, the longest is 487 km. Table 10 gives an overview of the number of water

bodies identified on rivers. 644 water bodies have been identified on the tributaries on the overview

scale.

Map 6 gives an overview of surface water bodies identified on the basin-wide level.



Table 11 gives an overview of the criteria used for the delineation of water bodies. A change in type is

the most frequent reason for the separation of water bodies as well as a change in pressure, in

particular a change in the degree of pollution. Also, changes in the hydrological regime and in

morphology were frequently used criteria. From this table it is apparent that similar approaches for the

delineation of water bodies in the Danube countries have been applied.

Table 10: Number of water bodies on rivers on the DRBD overview scale

DE AT CZ SK HU SI HR BA RS BG RO MD UA

Danube

River 17* 13* 0 4* 4* 0 2* 0 10* 1* 7* na 1*

Tributaries 38 180 26 36 53 24 35 33 48 20 139 0 12**

* includes for the Danube transboundary water bodies shared by two countries (10 water bodies)

** Tisza basin catchment only

Table 11: Criteria for the delineation of water bodies in rivers

DE AT CZ SK HU SI HR BA RS BG RO MD UA

Change in surface water

category x x x x x - x x x x x x x

Change in type x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Change in pressure

pollution x x x x x x - - x x x x x

alteration of hydrological

regime x x x x x x - x x x x x x

change in morphology x x - x x x - - x - x x x

fisheries - - - x - - - - - - x x -

In Bavaria the delineation of water bodies was subject to a revision as part of the update of the river

basin analysis. Adjustments were necessary for several reasons. As part of the general revision water

bodies were adapted to fit with the new plan units relevant under the Floods Directive. In addition,

adjustments were necessary due to newer information on pressures and impacts, including new

monitoring results, as well as due to some changes in river types, which were necessary to improve the

type-specific assessment of ecological status.

In Austria the re-delineation of water bodies is an ongoing process for adapting the planning

instruments to new information and changes in pressures and ecological and chemical status.

The Czech Republic re-delineated the water bodies in 2011. The reason for the re-delineation of water

bodies was an incorrect procedure of previous water body delineation which has caused heterogeneity

in water body catchments.

Serbia retained the same water body delineation principles. The only change, originating from the

national RBM Plan, is one additional water body on the Zapadna Morava River.

In Romania, the re-delineation of the SWBs, performed in 2013 for the scope of updating the Art. 5

Report, was based on the same criteria used in 2004. Even though most of the SWBs from the DRBM

Plan 2009 remained unchanged, there were some changes made mainly due to grouping/merging or

splitting of some water bodies and to updating/validation of the surface water typology.

The main reason of the re-delineation of the surface water bodies in Bulgaria was the update of the

typology in 2010. Additionally some inappropriately delineated SWB were corrected and some large



water bodies were split. The drinking water protected areas were delineated as separate water bodies.

The updated pressure-impact analysis has been used as basis for the further re-delineation.

3.1.3.2 Water bodies in lakes

Lakes were generally delineated as one water body (Neusiedlersee / Fertő-tó, Lake Balaton, Lake

Razim). The delineation of the water bodies for Lake Ialpug is not available.

3.1.3.3 Water bodies in transitional and coastal waters

Romania has delineated two transitional water bodies and two coastal water bodies in the DRBD. For

all water bodies mainly the typology and changes in pressures were used for their delineation.

3.2 Groundwater

According to Article 2 of the EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) ‘Groundwater’ means all

water which is below the surface of the ground in the saturation zone and in direct contact with the

ground or subsoil. An ‘Aquifer’ means a subsurface layer or layers of rock or other geological strata of

sufficient porosity and permeability to allow either a significant flow of groundwater or the abstraction

of significant quantities of groundwater. Finally, a ‘Body of groundwater’ means a distinct volume of

groundwater within an aquifer or aquifers.

Such groundwater bodies are subject to analyses and reviews as required under Article 5 and Annex II

of the WFD. This is the first review of the Art 5 report for DRBD.

3.2.1 Groundwater in the DRBD

Groundwater in the Danube River Basin District is of major importance and is subject to a variety of

uses with the main focus on drinking water, industry, agriculture, spa and geothermal energy purposes

A particular aspect reported by most countries is that shallow aquifers are at risk of pollution in the

short as well as long term as a result of use of fertilizers and chemicals as well as untreated sewage

and leaching from contaminated soils and waste deposits. In some cases, groundwater sources cannot

be used without prior treatment.

The trends in water use have varying character. While in some countries a decrease in water use as a

result of the process of economic transformation is still recorded in other countries a slight increase

has been observed (SK). Still a decline persists in the agricultural sector. Whereas in the past,

agriculture was the largest water user, today water use in the industry sector has the largest share. The

water withdrawal by the domestic sector has either remained unchanged or has experienced a slight

increase as a result of increase in access to piped water supply.

Groundwater is the major source of drinking water in the DRBD. Data from 13 countries covering

99% of the area of the DRBD indicate that about 72% of the drinking water in the DRBD is produced

from groundwater, serving at least 59 Mio. of the 81 Mio. inhabitants. Around 28% of the drinking

water is abstracted from surface water serving about 16 Mio. inhabitants. About 6 Mio. inhabitants are

not assigned to an abstraction source.



Figure 6: Abstraction of drinking water by source in the Danube River Basin

Note: bank filtered water has been considered as groundwater. Source of data: ICPDR Groundwater Task Group

Due to the heterogenic situation in the DRBD (e.g. different hydrogeological, topographic, climatic,

pressure and pollution conditions), the share of groundwater used for drinking water purposes in the

single Danube countries is not uniform; it ranges from 30% (DRBD part of Bulgaria) to 100% (DRBD

part of Austria).

Different hydrogeological characteristics add another level of complexity to GW resources. While

many aquifers lie under the floodplains of large rivers, others do not correspond to surface water

bodies, especially in the karstic regions of Austria, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia and

Montenegro. In the karst, groundwater flow is rapid and it is highly vulnerable to pollution.

3.2.2 Transboundary groundwater bodies of basin-wide importance

This report provides an overview of important transboundary groundwater bodies in the Danube River

Basin. They are defined as follows:

important due to the size of the groundwater body which means an area > 4000 km² or

important due to various criteria e.g. socio-economic importance, uses, impacts, pressures

interaction with aquatic ecosystem. The criteria need to be agreed bilaterally.

This means although there are other groundwater bodies with an area larger than 4000 km² and fully

situated within one country of the DRB they are dealt with at the national level as they are not

transboundary and not of basin wide importance. The link between the content of this report and the

national reports is given by the national codes of the groundwater bodies. The importance of

groundwater sources for associated ecosystems is dealt with in the national reports.

Currently information on 11 important transboundary groundwater bodies with eight countries

concerned (Germany, Austria, Slovak Republic, Hungary, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania and Moldova) is

available (see Map 7). These GW bodies have been agreed by all countries sharing their parts. The

exceptional case is GWB3 where the process of finalizing an agreement with MD is still ongoing

under the bilateral agreement which cover both transboundary surface and ground waters.



Table 12 gives a list of the currently nominated and bilaterally agreed important transboundary

groundwater bodies or groups of groundwater bodies with their key characteristics. The other

groundwater bodies are dealt with in the national reports.

Table 12: Nominated important transboundary groundwater bodies or groups of groundwater bodies in the DRBD

GWB

Nat.

part

Area

[km²]

Aquifer

characteristics Main use

Overlying

strata [m] Criteria for importance

Aquifer

Type Confined

1 AT-1 1,650 K Yes SPA, CAL 100-1,000 Intensive use

DE-1 4,250

2 BG-2 12,844 F, K Yes DRW, AGR, IND 0-600 > 4000 km²

RO-2 11,318

3 MD-3 9,662 P Yes DRW, AGR, IND 0-150 > 4000 km²

RO-3 12,531

4 BG-4 3,225 K, F-P Yes DRW, AGR, IND 0-10 > 4000 km²

RO-4 2,178

5 HU-5 4,989 P

No DRW, IRR, IND 2-30 GW resource, DRW protection

RO-5* 2,223 Yes

6 HU-6 1,035 P

No DRW, AGR, IRR 5-30 GW resource, DRW protection

RO-6* 1,456 Yes

7 HU-7 7,098

P

No

DRW, AGR, IND, IRR 0-125 > 4000 km², GW use, GW

resource, DRW protection RO-7 11,393 Yes

RS-7 10,506 Yes

8 HU-8 1,152 P No DRW, IRR, AGR, IND 2-5 GW resource, DRW protection

SK-8 2,211

9 HU-9 750 P Yes DRW,IRR 2-10 GW resource

SK-9 1,466

10 HU-10 492 K No DRW, OTH 0-500

DRW protection, dependent

ecosystem SK-10 598 K, F Yes

11 HU-11 3,248 K No DRW, SPA, CAL 0-2,500 Thermal water resource

SK-11 563 F, K Yes

* ... GWBs overlying

Description

Area Whole area of transboundary groundwater body covering all countries concerned in km²

Aquifer

characterisation

Aquifer Type: Predom. P = porous/ K = karst/ F = fissured. Multiple selections

possible: Predominantly porous, karst, fissured and combinations are possible. Main

type should be listed first.

Confined: Yes / No

Main use DRW = drinking water / AGR = agriculture / IRR = irrigation / IND = Industry / SPA

= balneology / CAL = caloric energy / OTH = other. Multiple selections possible.

Overlying strata Indicates a range of thickness (minimum and maximum in metres)

Criteria for

importance

If size < 4 000 km² criteria for importance of the GW body have to be named, they have

to be bilaterally agreed upon.

Criteria for delineation: The most frequent method applied for the delineation of the groundwater

bodies is based on geological boundaries in combination with a hydrogeological approach. In some



countries other criteria like importance for water supply, groundwater quality, water temperature or

surface water catchment areas were additionally taken into account.

Geological overview: Limestone, sandstone, gravel and boulders and permeable fluvial sediments are

the main components of the aquifers of the important transboundary groundwater bodies. Due to the

different geological formations, the corresponding hydraulic conductivity of the aquifers, and the

varying permeability of the overlying strata the aquifers are more or less protected. Geothermal

groundwater bodies in limestone formations are also reported.

The majority of the reported aquifers are porous aquifers (6 out of 11). One groundwater body is stated

as a karst aquifer whereas the rest is defined by a combination of karst, fissured and porous

characteristics. Four groundwater bodies are confined and two bodies are not overlain by impervious

or almost impervious formations. The remaining five groundwater bodies show both variations as they

are situated in different horizons. The different kinds of the overlying strata reflect the geological

formation of the aquifers. High permeable layers are also present as well as very impervious layers.

While the geothermal groundwater bodies are covered by overlying strata up to 2,500 m the aquifers

in the fluvial sediments have almost no overlying strata. For 5 out of the 11 groundwater bodies the

overlying strata ranges only from 0 to 60 metres. Some parts of groundwater bodies of basin-wide

importance are overlying each other in the vertical plane.

Groundwater use: For the majority of the important transboundary groundwater bodies main uses of

groundwater are drinking water purposes followed by the use for agriculture and industry. Six bodies

show the coexistent main uses of drinking water purposes and agriculture and five out of these six

show them in combination with the main use for industry. However, in some of the groundwater

bodies irrigation, spa and caloric energy are the main uses.

Criteria for selection as ‘important’: The importance as groundwater resource and/or drinking water

protection purposes are the most common criteria for the nomination (seven out of 11 bodies) of the

groundwater bodies. The size-criterion which defines a transboundary groundwater body with an area

> 4000 km² as important is the determining factor for four bodies. Intensive use, ecological criteria

and geothermal potential were also listed as relevant criteria for defining the importance of a

transboundary groundwater body.



4 Significant pressures identified in the DRBD

Human activities and needs such as agricultural activities, transportation, energy production or urban

development exert pressures on the water environment which are in need to be assessed for the

management of the river basin and for taking decisions on adequate measures for addressing and

reducing these pressures. The WFD requires information to be collected and maintained on the type

and magnitude of significant anthropogenic pressure. When addressing pressures on the DRB at the

basin-wide scale, it is clear that cumulative effects may occur (this is one reason why the basin-wide

perspective is needed). Effects can occur both in a downstream direction (e.g. pollutant

concentrations) and/or a downstream to upstream direction (e.g. river continuity). Addressing these

issues effectively requires a basin-wide perspective and cooperation between countries.

In preparation of the 1st DRBM Plan and based on the Danube Basin Analysis 2004, Significant Water

Management Issues were identified for the DRBD which represent pressures having a significant

impact on the basin-wide level. This chapter addresses each of the significant pressures on concerning

surface waters, addresses groundwater issues and includes revised information since the 1st DRBM

Plan. Some activities with only local effects will not be discussed in this report and are subject to

National Reports.

4.1 Surface waters: rivers

4.1.1 Organic pollution

4.1.1.1 General considerations

Sources and pathways of organic pollution

Organic pollution refers to emissions of non-toxic organic substances that can be biologically

decomposed by bacteria to a high extent. The key emitters of organic pollution are point sources.

Collected but untreated municipal waste water that discharge organic substances from households and

industrial plants connected to the sewer systems are the most important contributors. Significant

organic pollution can also be generated by waste water treatment plants of agglomerations without

appropriate treatment. Direct industrial dischargers and animal feeding and breeding lots are other

important point sources if their waste water is insufficiently treated.

Diffuse organic pollution is less relevant and related to polluted surface run-off from agricultural fields

(manure application and storage) and urban areas (e.g. litter scattering, gardens, animal wastes). A

specific case of diffuse organic pollution is the emission from combined sewer overflows that

represent a mixture of polluted run-off water and untreated waste water. Background emissions of

organic substances are related to sediment input arising from soil erosion, surface run-off from

naturally covered land and groundwater flow.

Water quality impacts of organic pollution

The primary impact of organic pollution on the aquatic environment is the influence on the dissolved

oxygen balance of the water bodies. Significant oxygen depletion can be experienced downstream of

pollution sources mainly due to biochemical decomposition of organic matter. Microorganisms

consume oxygen available in the water bodies for the breakdown of organic compounds to simple

molecules. However, dissolved oxygen concentrations are increasing again once the oxygen

enrichment rate via diffusion from the atmosphere and photosynthesis ensured by algae and

macrophytes is higher compared to the consumption rate.

Due to the self-purification capacity of water bodies the water quality impacts of a particular source

are mostly local. The decrease in oxygen concentration and the length of the affected downstream

river section depend on the amount of the organic matter received, the treatment degree of the waste

water, the dilution rate and the hydraulic conditions of the recipient. The affected river length usually

ranges from several tens to hundreds of kilometres downstream of the source. Decreased oxygen



content may seriously affect aquatic organisms especially sensitive species that can be damaged or

killed even at low fluctuations in oxygen concentration.

In the most severe cases of oxygen depletion anaerobic conditions might occur, to which only some

specific organism can accommodate. Additional impacts of anaerobic conditions could be the

formation of methane and hydrogen sulphide gases and dissolution of some toxic elements. Organic

pollution can be associated with by the health hazard due to possible microbiological contamination.

The usual indicators of organic pollution are biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand,

total organic carbon, Kjeldahl-nitrogen (organic and ammonium-nitrogen) and coliform bacteria.

Secondary (biological) waste water treatment and runoff management practices provide adequate

solutions to the organic pollution problem.

4.1.1.2 Organic pollution from urban waste water

According to the recent reporting of the Danube countries on the status of waste water treatment

(Annex 1, for the EU MS this is in line with the obligatory data submission for the reference year

2009/2010 to the Commission under the UWWTD) there are 6,152 agglomerations with a population

equivalent (PE, the ratio of the total daily amount of BOD produced in the agglomeration to the

amount generated by one person at the same time) more than 2,000 in the basin (Table 13). 78%

(4,790) of these agglomerations are small sized settlements having a PE between 2,000 and 10,000,

20% are between 10,000 and 100,000 PE whilst only 2% (129) have a PE higher than 100,000.

However, almost half (43%) of the generated total waste water load stems from the big agglomerations

indicating the necessity to use appropriate treatment technologies in these cities. In total, a waste water

load of about 91 Mio. PE is generated in the basin. Despite the high number of small agglomerations

they have the smallest contribution (22%) to the total loads, whilst middle-sized agglomerations

produce about one-third of the loads. Regarding the discharges of the organic substances into the river

systems, about 280,000 tons per year BOD and 670,000 tons per year COD are released from the

agglomerations with more than 2,000 PE throughout the basin (Table 14). The ratio of COD to BOD

of about 2.4 indicates a considerable fraction of biodegradable organic matter being still released.

The proportion of the agglomerations without collection system is relatively high (41%, Figure 7 left).

These are mainly small-sized settlements with PE between 2,000 and 10,000. There is no

agglomeration without collection system in the class higher than 100,000 PE and only a few percent

can be found in the middle class where sewer systems are missing. Ten percent of the agglomerations

have constructed public sewerage but are not connected to urban waste water treatment plants (the

agglomeration classes have similar proportion). On basin-wide level, half of the agglomerations with

PE higher than 2,000 have already connection to operating treatment plants. Majority of the middle-

sized and big settlements discharges municipal waste water into the recipients after treatment is

applied (84% and 90%, respectively). However, waste water is conveyed to treatment plants at only

42% of the small-sized agglomerations. Regarding the treatment stages 4% of the agglomerations are

only served by primary (mechanical) treatment. The proportion of the secondary (biological) treatment

is 19%, out of which 10% represent only partial treatment where less than 80% of the generated PE

are transported to the treatment plants (the rest is either not collected or differently treated). Waste

water at 27% of the settlements undergoes tertiary treatment aiming to remove nutrients besides

organic matter. In the class of small agglomerations the share of the secondary and tertiary treatment is

18% and 20%, respectively. In the upper classes (>10,000 PE) where nutrient removal is either

obligatory (EU MS) or recommended (Non-EU MS) these respective figures are 27% and 54% for the

middle-sized settlements, whilst 26% and 60% for the big ones.

The distribution of the agglomerations according to their size and connection to treatment plants

clearly influences that of the generated loads (Figure 7 right). Only 11% of the generated loads arise

from settlements having no sewerage. Additional 13% can be linked to agglomerations with collection

systems but without treatment. The majority (76%) of the loads stems from agglomerations already

connected to urban waste water treatment plants. Fourteen percent out of it are produced in

agglomerations with partial treatment. Three percent of the loads are only related to primary treatment,

the loads are mainly transported to either secondary (23%) or tertiary (50%) phases. Considering the

BOD and COD discharges (Table 14 and Figure 8), significant fractions of the total discharges (67%



and 57%, respectively) stem from the collected but untreated waste water amounts. The secondary

treatment class produces 18% of the BOD and 21% of the COD discharges. Plants with tertiary

treatment emit 8% (BOD) and 15% (COD) of the total releases due to their very high elimination rates

(over 95%). Despite the smaller waste water amounts subject to primary treatment, its share in the

discharges are higher (BOD: 7%, COD: 7%) due to the limited treatment efficiency.

Table 13: Number of agglomerations and generated urban waste water loads in the Danube Basin (reference year: 2009/2010)

Figure 7: Share of the collection and treatment stages in the total number of agglomerations and total population equivalents in the Danube Basin (reference year: 2009/2010); left: agglomerations, right: population equivalents.

Table 14: BOD and COD discharges via urban waste water in the Danube Basin (reference year: 2009/2010)

Type of treatmentNumber of

agglomerations

Generated load

(PE)

Collected and tertiary treatment 1,560 43,940,890

Collected and partial tertiary treatment 79 1,403,956

Collected and secondary treatment 566 11,175,883

Collected and partial secondary treatment 619 10,043,286

Collected and primary treatment 36 1,322,018

Collected and partial primary treatment 211 1,600,151

Collected and no treatment 589 12,169,385

Not collected and not treated 2,492 9,773,912

Total 6,152 91,429,480

Agglomerations

Collected and tertiarytreatment

Collected and partial tertiarytreatment

Collected and secondarytreatment

Collected and partialsecondary treatment

Collected and primarytreatment

Collected and partialprimary treatment

Collected and no treatment

Not collected and nottreated

PE

BOD (t/year) COD (t/year)

Collected and tertiary treatment 21,759 100,298

Collected and secondary treatment 51,742 139,163

Collected and primary treatment 20,566 46,219

Collected and no treatment 187,158 381,069

Total 281,224 666,749

Type of treatmentDischarge



Figure 8: Share of the collection and treatment stages in the total population equivalent and total organic pollution of surface waters via urban waste water in the Danube Basin (reference year: 2009/2010); left: BOD discharge, right: COD discharge

Country contributions to the basin-wide generated loads and BOD discharges as well as the

proportions of the treatment and collection stages are presented in Figure 9 and Figure 10. The

collection and treatment of waste water are at highly enhanced status in the upstream countries, at

good conditions in some countries in the middle-basin whilst significant proportions of the generated

loads are not collected or collected but not treated in the downstream states. As a consequence, the

BOD discharges of the new EU MS and the non-EU MS (except Ukraine) are substantially determined

by untreated waste water releases. Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia,

Romania and Bulgaria have still great potential to reduce organic pollution of the surface waters in the

Danube Basin by introducing at least biological treatment technology.

Figure 9: Share of the collection and treatment stages in the total population equivalents in the Danube countries (reference year: 2009/2010, absolute numbers on the top refer to PE)

BOD

Collected andtertiary treatment

Collected andsecondary treatment

Collected andprimary treatment

Collected and notreatment

COD

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

DE AT CZ SK HU SI HR BA RS RO BG MD UA

Not collected and not treated

Collected and no treatment

Collected and partial primarytreatment

Collected and primary treatment

Collected and partial secondarytreatment


Collected and partial tertiarytreatment

Collected and tertiary treatment

13 0

80

212

18 7

03

643

2 5

56

29

6

4 7

75

114

10 9

03

606

3 3

92

989

5 4

67

046

24 5

80

527

2 8

15

735

845

523

964

524

1 3

13 3

45

2 0

30

920



Figure 10: Share of the collection and treatment stages in the total organic pollution of the surface waters via urban waste water in the Danube countries (reference year: 2009/2010, absolute numbers on the top refer to tons BOD per year)

4.1.1.3 Organic pollution via direct industrial discharges and agricultural point sources

Data for the industrial and agricultural direct dischargers were derived from the E-PRTR database

which contains the main industrial facilities and their discharges over the emission level of 50 tons

TOC per year (Annex 2, reference year 2010/2011). In total, 6 main industrial sectors were reported

by the countries being relevant direct discharging activities in the basin. Out of these, the chemical

industry (37%), the paper and wood processing (32%) and the food and beverage sector (18%) are the

most important fields in terms of organic pollution (Figure 11). In the reference year (2010/2011)

some 16,500 tons per year organic substances expressed in TOC were released (Table 15) that

approximately equal to 50,000 tons per year of COD discharge. The type of activities, their total

releases and proportions are differing among the countries. Germany, Slovakia, Hungary, Serbia and

Romania contribute the highest TOC discharges via industrial activities (Figure 12). Czech Republic,

Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Moldova and Ukraine have no facilities reported over the given

release threshold.

Table 15: Organic pollution via direct industrial discharges in the DRBD according to different industrial sectors (reference year: 2010/2011)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%





Collected and tertiarytreatment

988

4 6

44

5 0

36

3 5

74

21 9

13

18 7

06

69 5

31

93 8

56

14 9

09

3 9

20

1 3

47

5025

37

776

Releases to water

TOC (t/year)

Energy sector 1,655

Production and processing of metals 564

Chemical industry 6,089

Paper and w ood production and processing 5,290

Intensive livestock production and aquaculture 66

Products from the food and beverage sector 2,925

Total 16,589

Activities



Figure 11: Share of the industrial sectors in the total organic pollution via direct industrial discharges in the Danube Basin (reference year: 2010/2011)

Figure 12: Share of the industrial sectors in the total organic pollution via direct industrial discharges in the Danube countries (reference year: 2010/2011, absolute numbers on the top refer to tons TOC per year)

4.1.1.4 Addressing pressures by the implementation of the Joint Program of Measures 2009-2015

The Danube countries committed themselves in the DRPC, inter alia, to implement measures to reduce

the pollution loads entering the Black Sea from sources in the Danube River Basin. The 1st DRBM

Plan included major efforts for the improvement of the urban waste water and industrial sector by

upgrading or constructing sewer systems and waste water treatment plants as well as introducing Best

Available Techniques (BAT) at the main industrial facilities. Management activities are legally

determined for the EU Member States (EU MS) through several EU directives. The Urban Waste

Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD) specifically focuses on the sewer system and waste water

system development. EU MS are obliged to establish sewer systems and treatment plants at least with

secondary (biological) treatment or equivalent other treatment at all agglomerations with a load higher

than 2,000 PE (also for agglomerations smaller than 2,000 PE appropriate treatment must be ensured).

This must have been finished till 2005 in the EU MS, even though the new EU MS have a longer

transition period to fulfil the requirements (e.g. Romania till 2018). EU MS must report their activities

in the waste water sector to the Commission that makes them transparent to the public through the

Waterbase information system. Non-EU MS also make efforts to achieve significant improvements.

Energy sector

Production and processing ofmetals

Chemical industry

Paper and wood productionand processing

Intensive livestock productionand aquaculture

Products from the food andbeverage sector

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%





Chemical industry


Energy sector

3 3

48

468

3 0

00

1 6

75

3 3

48

2 8

11

3 3

48

4 5

46

398

344



They are constructing a specific number of sewer systems and waste water treatment plants till 2015

that is realistically executable.

Organic pollution stemming from industrial facilities and large farms is also addressed by the Danube

countries. For EU MS the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED, repealing inter alia the Integrated

Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (IPPCD) by the 7th of January 2014) dictates that

authorities need to ensure that pollution prevention and control measures at the major industrial units

are up-to-date with the latest Best Available Techniques (BAT) developments. The industrial plants

covered by the Directive must have a permit with emission limit values for polluting substances to

ensure that certain environmental conditions are met. Application of BAT in the large industrial and

agro-industrial facilities was mandatory in EU MS till the end of 2007, with a gradual transition period

for some new EU MS. It is expected that all relevant facilities in the EU MS will meet the IED

requirements according to the legal deadlines. Reporting is also obligatory, information on these

industrial facilities must be available for the public. For this purpose, emission data of facilities from

different industrial sectors and over a certain capacity threshold have to be uploaded to the European

Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR). Application of BAT is recommended for Non-EU

MS, especially for some special industrial sectors, like chemical, food, chemical pulping and

papermaking industry. For these sectors ICPDR elaborated supplying documents that recommend

appropriate BAT. Other Directives like Nitrate Directive (ND) and Sewage Sludge Directive (SSD)

that respectively concern the fate of nutrients and hazardous substances have also benefits for organic

pollution reduction. Regulation of the manure and sewage sludge application at the agricultural fields

positively affects the diffuse organic pollution as well reducing organic matter available at the fields

for run-off and sediment transport. Similar regulatory actions are recommended for the Non-EU MS.

4.1.1.5 Summary and outlook

At the basin scale, the urban waste water sector generates about 280,000 tons per year BOD and

670,000 tons per year COD discharges into the surface water bodies of the Danube Basin (reference

year: 2009/2010). The direct industrial emissions of organic substances total up to ca. 50,000 tons per

year COD for the reference year (2010/2011). This means an overall COD emissions of 720,000 tons

per year, out of which 93% are released by the urban waste water sector.

Comparing the actual figures of the waste water sector to those of the 1st DRBM Plan, remarkable

reduction of the organic pollution can be recognised according to the reported data. For the reference

year (2005/2006) of the first DRBM Plan 480,000 tons per year BOD and 1,040,000 tons per year

COD pollution were reported via urban waste water discharges (excluding the agglomerations without

collection system and therefore without direct discharges into surface waters). The recently reported

emissions are significantly lower, the BOD and COD discharge reduction rates are 41% and 36%,

respectively. The reported industrial emissions also decreased by about 60% in comparison to the

reference year (2006) of the first DRBM Plan.

In the first management cycle significant investments have been made in the field of organic pollution

control in the Danube River Basin District (DRBD) resulting in considerable reduction of organic

pollution. This progress also contributes to achieve the UN Millennium Development Goals in the

field of sanitation by providing access to sanitation for the urban population. However, additional

measures should be taken in the future. According to the presented assessments and the recent 7th

Implementation Report of the UWWTD, the new EU MS have a considerable delay in the

implementation of the UWWTD mainly due to financial limitations. Another issue of concern is the

lack of compliance in a significant number of big agglomerations. The objectives of the 1st DRBM

Plan were related to the accession treaty obligations of the new EU MS which were rather optimistic.

Thus, the progress achieved is slower than it was originally planned and the objectives will probably

be accomplished with a delay as the implementation of the respective measures is lagging behind in

many countries. The transition period obtained by some EU MS for the implementation of the

UWWTD requirements was considered as a funding prioritisation criterion (i.e. Romania: most

agglomerations between 2,000 and 10,000 PE will be in line with the UWWTD provisions after 2015,

with a transition period until 2018, and therefore the agglomerations with more than 10,000 PE have a



higher priority). Therefore, continuation of the developments in the urban waste water sector is

necessary.

For the 2nd

DRBM Plan, further measures to achieve the ICPDR’s basin-wide vision for organic

pollution should be identified and implemented. Ensuring integration of the implementation of the

WFD, UWWTD and IED in EU MS and supporting Non EU MS to achieve progress is a challenge in

the Danube River Basin and it should be further observed and managed. For Non EU MS, further

efforts should be made to continuously implement and update BAT in the chemical, food, chemical

pulping and papermaking industrial facilities or to develop new ones.

Realistic planning of investments is needed in line with the WFD/DRBM Plan requirements and

funding availability. Efforts are needed to reinforce the capacity of the countries to identify and

prepare environmental investment projects, and to improve access to good practice studies with the

aim of facilitating the development of investment projects.

4.1.2 Nutrient pollution


Sources and pathways of nutrient pollution

Nutrient pollution is caused by significant releases of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) into the aquatic

environment. Nutrient emissions can originate from both point and diffuse sources. Point sources of

nutrient discharges are highly interlinked to those of the organic pollution. Municipal waste water

treatment plants with inappropriate technology, untreated waste water, industrial enterprises, animal

husbandry can discharge considerable amounts of nutrients into the surface waters besides organic

matter. Diffuse pathways, however, have higher importance considering nutrients. Direct atmospheric

deposition, overland flow, sediment transport, tile drainage flow and groundwater flow can

remarkably contribute to the emissions into rivers, conveying nutrients from agriculture, urban areas,

atmosphere and even from naturally covered areas.

The importance of the pathways for diffuse pollution is different for N and P. For N, urban run-off and

groundwater flow are the most relevant diffuse pathways. In case of P, groundwater is usually

replaced by sediment transport generated by soil erosion. Regarding the sources, agriculture plays a

key role due to the significant nutrient surpluses of the cultivated soils caused by inappropriate

agricultural practices. Agglomerations with sewer systems but without connection to treatment plant

having nutrient removal technology and combined sewer overflows are important urban sources.

Deposition from the atmosphere is especially relevant for N as many combustion processes and

agricultural activities produce N gases and aerosols that can be subject to deposition. The role of

background fluxes is often overlooked even though they might have significant regional contribution

especially from poorly covered areas, mountainous catchments or glaciers.

Water quality impacts of nutrient pollution

Impacts on water status caused by nutrient pollution can be recognized through substantial changes in

water ecosystems. The natural aquatic ecosystem is sensitive to the amount of the available nutrients

which are limiting factors. In case of nutrient enrichment the growth of aquatic algae and macrophytes

can be accelerated and water bodies can be overpopulated by specific species. Many lakes and seas

have been suffering from eutrophication that severely impairs water quality and ecosystem functioning

(substantial algae growth and consequently oxygen depletion, toxicity, pH variations, accumulation of

organic substances, change in species composition and in number of individuals) as well as limits or

hinders human water uses (recreation, fisheries, drinking water supply). Even though river systems,

floodplains and reservoirs can retain nutrients during their in-stream transport (e.g. denitrification,

uptake, settling), significant amounts of them can reach lakes and even seas, transposing water quality

impacts far downstream from the sources. Therefore, nutrient pollution is clearly a Danube-basin wide

problem.

Control of point source nutrient emissions is closely linked to that of the organic pollution and requires

nutrient removal at the waste water treatment plants. The management of diffuse nutrient emissions is



a challenging task due to their temporal and spatial variability and strong relation to hydrology. Since

the diffuse emissions are almost immeasurable at source, catchment-scale assessments and water

quality modelling are widely used to help in dealing with the issue. Management actions usually

concern a wide range of agricultural best management practices and their combinations. Recovery of

an eutrophic water body following management efforts especially on diffuse sources of pollution can

take longer time (even several decades) due to the time delay of several contributing pathways (e.g.

nitrogen loads via groundwater) and the stored nutrients in the bottom sediments that can re-enter

water body (e.g. phosphorus internal loads of lakes). Typical parameters related to nutrient pollution

are total nitrogen, dissolved inorganic nitrogen, total phosphorus, orthophosphate-phosphorus and

chlorophyll-a.

4.1.2.2 Point source nutrient emissions

In total, 1,639 agglomerations with a PE of about 45 million are equipped with tertiary treatment

aiming nutrient removal in the basin (Annex 1, reference year: 2009/2010). Majority of them (80%)

addresses the elimination of both nutrients. Out of the 1,362 agglomerations with a size over 10,000

PE 717 agglomerations (53%) have tertiary technology. In terms of PE, the overall load generation at

these agglomerations is 70 million PE, 59% of this load (41 million PE) is subject to nutrient removal.

At the basin scale 104,000 tons per year TN and 16,000 tons per year TP are emitted into the surface

waters from the waste water collection and treatment facilities (Table 16). 35% (TN) and 38% (TP) of

the emissions can be linked to untreated waste water discharged directly into the recipients (Figure

13). About 4% of the nutrient releases stem from plants having mechanical treatment, whilst the

proportion of the waste water treatment plants with secondary treatment is 29% (TN) and 27% (TP).

Some 32% and 31% of the nutrient emissions are discharged from plants with stringent technologies.

Regarding the upper agglomeration classes (above 10,000 PE), 63% (nitrogen) and 71% (phosphorus)

of the nutrient emissions are related to less stringent technologies indicating that further improvement

of the treatment at these settlements can significantly reduce the nutrient discharges at the basin scale.

Table 16: Nutrient pollution of surface waters via urban waste water in the Danube Basin (reference year: 2009/2010)

TN (t/year) TP (t/year)

collected and tertiary treatment (NP removal) 29,138 4,314

collected and tertiary treatment (P removal) 1,770 133

collected and tertiary treatment (N removal) 2,750 447

collected and secondary treatment 29,870 4,289

collected and primary treatment 4,158 582

collected and no treatment 35,942 6,028

Total 103,627 15,793

Type of treatmentDischarge



Figure 13: Share of the collection and treatment stages in the total nutrient pollution of surface waters via urban waste water in the Danube Basin (reference year: 2009/2010); on the left: TN, on the right: TP

Country performances are presented in Figure 14. The variation at the country level is similar to the

situation discussed by the organic pollution. Upstream countries have only limited possibilities as they

have already introduced nutrient removal at the vast majority of the agglomerations, even for the

smaller sized settlements. Middle and downstream countries can, however, remarkably enhance the

overall treatment status of the plants, particularly at the agglomerations over 10,000 PE, where the

introduction of the tertiary treatment technologies is lagging behind.

Figure 14: Share of the collection and treatment stages in the total nutrient pollution via urban waste water in the Danube countries (reference year: 2009/2010); on the left: TN, on the right: TP (absolute numbers on the top refer to tons TN and TP per year)

Regarding the industrial discharges, the main sectors with nutrient pollution have been reported

(Annex 2, reference year: 2010/2011) by the countries are the same as those of the organic pollution.

In total, 4,700 tons per year nitrogen and 170 tons per year phosphorus were released in the reference

year (Table 17). For the nitrogen, the chemical industry has the highest importance emitting almost

60% of the total discharges (Figure 15). Besides this, energy sector, metal industry and livestock

farming are remarkable contributors. In case of phosphorus, metal industry is not relevant whilst all

other sectors have significant proportions in the total discharge amounts. Again, chemical industry has

the highest share with 30%. The reported industrial emissions are relatively small in comparison to

those of the urban waste water, only 5% (TN) and 1% (TP) of the waste water discharges are emitted

via industrial facilities. Releases from the chemical industry are mainly relevant in the upstream and

middle countries (Figure 16), whilst food and paper industry become important downstream. Slovakia,

Hungary and Romania produce the highest direct industrial emissions.

TN

Collected and tertiarytreatment (NP removal)

Collected and tertiarytreatment (P removal)

Collected and tertiarytreatment (N removal)

Collected andsecondary treatment



TP

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


11 8

37

8 6

71

1 5

92

5595

13

864

3 2

30

9 5

63

29 6

47

5 1

19

777

794

5835

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%





Collected and tertiarytreatment (N removal)

Collected and tertiarytreatment (P removal)

Collected and tertiarytreatment (NP removal)

1017

708

170

730

2 8

45

850

1 9

10

3 5

68

1 3

22

196

110

1077

7034

1288



Table 17: Nutrient pollution of surface waters via direct industrial waste water discharges in the DRB (reference year: 2010/2011)

Figure 15: Share of the industrial activities in the total nutrient pollution via direct industrial waste water discharges in the Danube Basin (reference year: 2010/2011); on the left: TN, on the right: TP

Figure 16: Share of the industrial activities in the total nutrient pollution via direct industrial waste water discharges in the Danube countries (reference year 2010/2011); on the left: TN, on the right: TP (absolute numbers on the top refer to tons TN/TP per year)

TN (t/year) TP (t/year)

Energy sector 391 28

Production and processing of metals 467 -

Chemical industry 2,677 49

Paper and w ood production and processing 311 21

Intensive livestock production and aquaculture 692 36

Products from the food and beverage sector 170 39

Total 4,708 174

ActivitiesReleases to water

Energy sector


Chemical industry




TPTN

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%





Chemical industry


Energy sector

375

238

1366

595

3 3

48

116

3 3

48

3 3

48

1829

53

136

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Intensive livestockproduction and aquaculture


Chemical industry

Production and processingof metals

Energy sector

6 9

49

43

3 3

48 5

3 3

48

25

3 3

4836



4.1.2.3 Diffuse nutrient emissions

To estimate the spatial patterns of the nutrient emissions in the basin and assess the different pathways

contributing to the total emissions, the MONERIS model (Venohr et al., 2011) was applied for the

entire basin and for long-term average hydrological conditions (2000-2008). The model is an

empirical, catchment-scale, lumped parameter and long-term average approach which can supply

decision making to facilitate the elaboration of larger scale watershed management strategies. It can

reasonably estimate the regional distribution of the nutrient emissions entering the surface waters

within the basin at sub-catchment scale and determine their most important sources and pathways.

Moreover, taking into account the main in-stream retention processes the river loads at the catchment

outlets can be calculated that can be used for model calibration and validation.

The application of the model has a quite long story in the Danube countries and at the basin scale as

well in the field of river basin management and nutrient balancing. The model has been enhanced and

adapted to the specific ICPDR needs by several regional projects accomplished in the basin. The

model reasonably and reliably works that has been proven by comparison of the results to observed

river loads at several gauges for a long time period. It can be easily supported by available data, run

for the entire basin and frequently updated according to the actual conditions. The model is sensitive

for some key management parameters, allowing to elaborate realistic future management scenarios of

basin-wide relevance and assess their impacts on water quality. Recently, the input dataset has been

updated and extended according to the available latest spatial information. Moreover, the model

algorithm has been improved resulting in updated nutrient emission patterns for the Danube basin.

According to the recent calculations, the total nitrogen emissions in the Danube river basin are

670,000 tons per year (8.2 kg per hectare and year) for long-term average hydrological conditions

(Table 18). The point source discharges have been updated with those reported in Table 16 and Table

17, whereas point sources in MONERIS represent the summed emissions from waste water treatment

plants and direct industrial discharges, whilst untreated waste water discharges are parts of the

emissions via urban runoff. The groundwater pathway is responsible for 55% of all TN emissions in

the Danube basin and thus the most important pathway (Figure 17 left). Nitrogen inputs via urban

runoff have a proportion of 11 %, whilst tile drainages, surface runoff, atmospheric deposition and

erosion show a contribution of 10%, 9%, 2% and 2% respectively. Diffuse inputs dominate the basin-

wide nitrogen emissions as they have a proportion of 89% in total. Emissions via point sources

contribute with 11 % to total nitrogen emissions. Regarding the main sources (Figure 17 right),

agricultural fields dominate the emission sources showing a proportion of 49%, although only 29% of

the emissions from agricultural areas are related to fertiliser or manure application, whilst the

remaining 20% are caused by atmospheric deposition. Urban areas (waste water discharges, runoff

from paved surfaces, and combined sewer overflows) and natural lands where atmospheric deposition

provides N input are significant source areas as well. This indicates that a significant amount of N

sources stem from outside the basin and transported via atmospheric deposition that can difficultly be

controlled. Natural background pollution is less important at basin-wide level. The regional

distribution of the emissions is shown in Map 8. Regions with high agricultural surplus and shorter

groundwater residence time and/or bedrock layers with lower denitrification capacity produce the

highest area-specific emissions. Urban areas with significant point sources and urban runoff generate

remarkable local fluxes as well.



Table 18: Nutrient emissions of the Danube basin under long-term average (2000-2008) hydrological conditions according to different pathways

1 summed emissions from urban waste water treatment plants and industrial direct discharges

Figure 17: Share of pathways and sources in the overall TN emissions under long-term average (2000-2008) hydrological conditions in the Danube Basin; on the left: pathways, on the right: sources

Country contributions can be seen in Figure 18. Slovenia, Germany, Austria and Slovakia produce the

highest area-specific N emissions in the basin. Groundwater flow dominates the distribution of the

pathways in most of the countries. Drained agricultural fields have considerable proportion in Hungary

and Serbia. Point sources and urban runoff show significant relative contributions in the downstream

countries. Regarding the sources, agricultural activities have a principal role in nitrogen emission

generation, whereas atmospheric deposition is an equally important nitrogen input than fertilisers in

many countries. Urban water management is still an important source, especially in the new and non

EU MS. In countries with significant proportion of natural landscapes (Austria, Croatia, Bosnia and

Herzegovina, Montenegro and Ukraine) remarkable relative emissions are produced from these areas.

PathwayWater emissons

TN (t/year)

Water emissions

TP (t/year)

Direct deposition 13,830 329

Overland flow 57,595 377

Erosion 15,435 11,975

Tile drainage flow 65,531 462

Groundw ater f low 369,990 4,768

Urban runoff 70,763 16,562

Point sources 1 72,393 9,938

Total 665,537 44,412

Agriculture(fertilisers)

Agriculture(deposition)

Urban watermanagement

Other areas

Naturalbackground

Direct deposition

Overland flow

Erosion

Tile drainage flow

Groundwater flow

Urban runoff

Point sources



Figure 18: Share of the pathways in the overall TN emissions under long-term average (2000-2008) hydrological conditions in the Danube countries ); on the left: pathways, on the right: sources (absolute numbers on the top refer to kg N per hectare and year)

Total phosphorus emissions in the Danube river basin are 44,000 tons per year (0.55 kg per hectare per

year) for long-term average conditions (Table 18). TP emissions via the different pathways are

presented in Figure 19 (left). The most important diffuse pathway in the Danube river basin is the

runoff from the urban systems (including untreated waste water discharges and combined sewer

overflows) which is responsible for 37% of all TP emissions. Emissions via erosion contribute with

27% to total phosphorus emissions, groundwater has a proportion of 11%. Emissions via surface

runoff, atmospheric deposition and tile drainages contribute with 1% or less to the total phosphorus

emissions. All diffuse sources have a total share of 78%, whilst point sources pathway has a

contribution of 22%. Source apportionment (Figure 19 right) shows the clear dominance of the urban

areas producing 60% of the emissions. Agriculture is responsible for 30% of the total emissions,

whilst the rest belongs mainly to background emissions. This suggests a high potential of measures

addressing the urban water management to reduce the nutrient emissions. However, the agricultural

pressure could strengthen due to the potential future agricultural development especially in the middle

and lower parts of the Danube. Hilly regions with intensive agricultural activity or mountainous areas

producing high background emission rates generate the largest P inputs of the surface waters (Map 9).

Similarly to N, point sources and paved urban surfaces significantly contribute to the total emissions

as well.

Figure 19: Share of the pathways and sources in the overall TP emissions under long-term average (2000-2008) hydrological conditions in the Danube Basin; on the left: pathways, on the right: sources

Pathway and source apportionments per country are presented in Figure 20. Slovenia, Bulgaria,

Moldova and Serbia generate the biggest P emission rates. Point sources, soil erosion and urban runoff

are the most relevant emission components. Their proportion varies according to the state of

development in the urban waste water sector and the topographic and land use conditions. Upstream

countries show similar importance of the urban water management and agricultural sectors regarding

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

DE AT CZ SK HU SI HR BA RS ME RO BG MD UA

Point sources

Urban runoff

Groundwaterflow

Tile drainageflow

Erosion

Overland flow

Directdeposition 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Naturalbackground

Other areas




16,1

4

9,5

2

8,0

4

8,9

3

6,2

2

18,1

0

6,2

9

7,8

9

7,1

9

7,3

6

7,0

1

7,4

0

4,8

7

8,0

2




Other areas

Naturalbackground

Direct deposition

Overland flow

Erosion

Tile drainage flow

Groundwater flow

Urban runoff

Point sources



the sources of the P emissions. Moving downstream in the basin urban areas become more dominant

indicating the high potential to improve waste water treatment by introducing P removal.

Figure 20: Share of the pathways in the overall TP emissions under long-term average (2000-2008) hydrological conditions in the Danube countries); on the left: pathways, on the right: sources (absolute numbers on the top refer to kg P per hectare and year)


The 1st DRBM Plan includes, on the basin-wide level, basic measures in the urban waste water,

industrial and agricultural sectors and the implementation of the ICPDR Best Agricultural Practice

(BAP) recommendations as the main measures to address nutrient emissions. As the point source

pollution for nutrients and organic substances are highly interlinked their regulation is partially

ensured by the same measures to be implemented. In the EU MS, the UWWTD requires more

stringent removal technology than secondary treatment if the recipient water body is sensitive to

eutrophication or the catchment in which a particular urban waste water treatment plant is located

belongs to a sensitive water body. Since the Black Sea was significantly suffering from eutrophication

and the receiving coastal areas have been designated as a sensitive area under the UWWTD, more

stringent treatment technology than secondary treatment is needed at least at the medium-sized and

large treatment plants. According to the UWWTD treatment plants with a load higher than 10,000 PE

in the EU MS of the DRBD have to be subject to tertiary treatment (nutrient removal) or a reduction of

at least 75% in the overall load of total phosphorus and nitrogen entering all urban waste water

treatment plants has to be achieved. Old EU MS had to establish nutrient removal technology till 1999,

new EU MS obtained longer implementation period. More stringent technology is strongly suggested

for the Non-EU MS as well in order to ensure a consistent development strategy in waste water sector.

The implementation of the IED in the EU MS and BAT recommendations in Non-EU MS can

significantly reduce industrial and agricultural point source nutrient pollution.

Application of phosphate-free detergents in laundry is a great example for source control by phasing

out phosphorus inputs from laundry waste water. The introduction of phosphate-free detergents is

considered to be a fast and efficient measure to reduce phosphorus emissions into surface waters. For

the large number of settlements smaller than 10,000 PE the UWWTD does not legally require

phosphorus removal. A reduction of phosphate in detergents could have a significant influence on

decreasing phosphorus loads in the Danube, particularly in the short term before all countries have

built a complete network of sewers and waste water treatment plants. The ICPDR has been highly

supporting the introduction of the phosphate-free detergents in the Danube countries which committed

themselves at ministerial level to initiate the introduction of a maximum limit for the phosphate

content of the consumer detergents. Some EU MS have already successfully reduced or eliminated the

P-content of the detergents. A new EU Regulation (259/2012) regarding the use of phosphate-free

detergents has recently been put into force for consumer laundry and will be for automatic

dishwashing on the 1st of January 2017 that prescribes limitations on the phosphate contents of a

detergent dose in a laundry/dishwashing cycle. The Regulation should be implemented in all EU MS

and similar efforts are in progress in some Non-EU MS.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Point sources

Urban runoff

Groundwaterflow

Tile drainageflow

Erosion

Overland flow

Directdeposition 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

DE AT CZ SK HU SI HR BA ME RS RO BG MD UA

Naturalbackground

Other areas




0,5

7

0,3

2

0,4

8

0,5

0

0,5

4

1,3

1

0,4

5

0,4

8

0,5

8

0,3

7

0,5

6

0,7

9

0,7

8

0,5

1



A key set of measures to reduce nutrient inputs and losses related to farming practices and land

management has been identified. Agricultural nitrogen pollution of ground and surface water is

regulated by the ND in the EU MS. It requires designation of vulnerable zones by either applying the

whole territory approach or in so called Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ). In these zones the amount of

nitrate that is applied on agricultural fields in fertilizer or manure is limited and the application is

strictly regulated through action programmes with basic mandatory measures. A code of good

agricultural practices is also recommended outside the NVZs on voluntary basis to ensure low nitrogen

emissions entering the river network. A set of measures related to the concept of Best Agricultural

Practices (BAP) is also suggested to be adopted in the entire Danube Basin. The concept has been

applied to different extent among the countries to manage inter alia diffuse nutrient emissions that is

partly covered by the ND for nitrate pollution in the EU MS. It concerns appropriate land management

activities (source and transport control measures) that are able to prevent, control and minimize the

input, mobilization and transport of nutrients from fields towards water bodies. The management

usually leans on both compulsory actions and voluntary measures that are acceptable for the farming

community and subsidized via regional/state funds (e.g. agri-environmental measures under the direct

payments and rural development programmes of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, CAP). The

critical area concept is an emerging approach in several countries that aims to find technically and

economically feasible measures. It considers that management activities should focus on those areas

where the highest emissions come from and where the highest fluxes from land to water probably are

transported. Targeting management actions to these critical fields can provide cost-efficiency (high

river load reduction at minimal implementation costs and area demand).


The estimated recent, basin-wide nutrient emissions according to long-term average (2000-2008)

hydrological conditions are 670,000 tons per year TN and 44,000 tons per year TP. Diffuse pathways

clearly dominate the overall emissions having a contribution of 89% (TN) and 78% (TP). For N,

groundwater is the most important diffuse pathway with a proportion of 55%. In case of P, urban

runoff (37%) and soil erosion (27%) generates the highest emissions. Regarding the sources,

agriculture (N: 49%, P: 30%) and urban water management (N: 22%, 60%) are responsible for the

majority of the nutrient emissions.

The long-term average (2000-2008) observed river loads estimated from river discharge and nutrient

concentration data at the river mouth (station Reni) are 510,000 tons per year (TN) and 25,000 tons

per year (TP). These numbers indicate remarkable retentions in the river network comparing them to

the total emission values. Twenty-four percent of the TN emissions entering the river systems are

retained mainly by denitrification. Some 45% of the TP emissions do not reach the river mouth

particularly due to settling. However, the recently transported fluxes are still considerably higher than

that of the early 1960ies representing the desired load targets (TN: 300,000 tons per year, TP: 20,000

tons per year), which means a TN and TP load reduction need of 40% and 20%, respectively. This

requires further decrease of both, the point source and diffuse emissions generated in the Danube

basin.

Similarly to the organic pollution, remarkable decrease is visible regarding the nutrient point source

emissions in the Danube basin. For the reference year of the 1st DRBM Plan (2005/2006) 130,000 tons

per year TN and 22,000 tons per year TP pollution was reported via direct urban waste water

discharges. The recently reported point source nutrient emissions are significantly lower in

comparison to those of the first DRBM Plan, the TN and TP discharges declined by 20% and 28%,

respectively. Industrial direct emissions dropped by about 40% (TN) and 60% (TP). The recent

modelling results of the MONERIS for the basin-wide total emissions represent the impacts of a

comprehensive update of the input database and some methodological changes in the model algorithm

on the model results rather than the outcomes of a completely different investigation period. Although

the total diffuse nutrient emissions have not significantly changed in comparison to the results of the

first plan (2000-2005), higher differences can be found for the proportion of the various pathways and

for several regions of the basin. These differences are consequences of the model developments and

the updated input data.



The measures under implementation are substantially contributing to the reduction of nutrient inputs

into surface waters and groundwater in the DRBD but further efforts are still needed. Similarly to the

organic pollution, the enhancement of the urban waste water treatment and application of BAT should

continue. According to the assessments of the recent Implementation Report of the Nitrates Directive

additional actions are needed to reduce and prevent pollution of the ground waters and in terms of

extending NVZ designation and reinforcing action programmes in order to avoid eutrophication of the

coastal waters. Countries should intensify their efforts to accelerate the identification and

implementation of measures to reduce nutrient pollution particularly via diffuse pathways and from

agriculture. To further reduce nutrient loads of rivers, coastal waters and seas necessary to meet the

environmental objectives of the WFD and DRPC should be further considered through basin-wide

nutrient emission estimations and scenario assessment (using tools such as the MONERIS model).

Efforts are needed to ensure necessary financial investments and clarification is required on how to

finance agricultural measures. Past experience with the implementation of the ND and application of

agri-environmental measures have clearly demonstrated the need for financial support out of the CAP.

Nevertheless, countries should make use of the CAP-Reform. Between 2014 and 2020, over 100

billion EUR will be invested to help farmers meet the challenges of soil and water quality, biodiversity

and climate change by funding environmentally friendly farming practices and agri-environmental

measures from both direct payment and rural development pillars. Efforts to extend the introduction of

phosphate-free detergents to all Danube countries are also likely to be needed. One of the challenging

future tasks of this field is to better understand and realistically predict the possible future economic

drivers, the agricultural development and changes and their anticipated impacts.

The measures implemented in the urban waste water sector might have short-term negative impacts if

establishment of public sewer systems is not accompanied with appropriate nutrient removal

technology before discharging into the recipients. Simple collection and concentrated discharge of

waste water without sufficient tertiary treatment usually causes higher nutrient pollution of surface

water bodies than dispersed smaller waste water discharges from septic tanks that percolate into

groundwater and reach surface waters via base flow. Due to the longer time necessary for an effective

management of diffuse nutrient pollution (longer residence time of groundwater, stored nutrients in

bottom sediment of reservoirs) the water quality impacts of any changes in agriculture induced by the

implementation of the ND or BAP recommendations will probably not be instantly visible but after

several years or even decades only.

4.1.3 Hazardous substances pollution


Sources and pathways of hazardous substances pollution

Hazardous substances pollution involves contamination with priority substances laid down in WFD

Annex X and other specific pollutants that might be toxic and have regional relevance. They include

both inorganic and organic micro-pollutants such as heavy metals, arsenic, cyanides, oil and its

compounds, trihalomethanes, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, biphenyls, phenols, pesticides,

haloalkanes, endocrine disruptors, pharmaceuticals, etc. Hazardous substances can be emitted from

both point and diffuse sources. Households and public buildings connected to sewerage can contribute

to water pollution by emitting chemicals used in the course of daily routine. Industrial facilities that

process, utilise, produce or store hazardous substances can release them with waste water discharges.

Indirect dischargers are connected to public sewer systems and can transport contaminated industrial

waste water to the treatment plants if their own treatment system is not sufficient. Direct dischargers

without specific removal technology for hazardous substances can potentially deteriorate water

quality.

Diffuse emission pathways are substance-specific. Surface run-off, sediment transport and

groundwater flow are the main contributing routes. Urban systems (deposited air pollutants, litter,

combined sewer overflows), agriculture (pesticide and contaminated sludge application), contaminated

sites (industrial areas, landfills, abandoned areas) and mining sites are the most important source

sectors. Background geochemical loads can be considerable in specific regions where the parent rock



layers naturally contain hazardous substances (e.g. heavy metals). Hazardous substances

contamination can specially be realized through accidental pollutions. Industrial facilities, mining

areas and contaminated sites that process or contain such substances in substantial amounts pose

hazard (potential risk) to cause pollution even though they might not have any release in their regular

operation. However, in case of emergency situations (natural disasters like flood or earthquake as well

as operation failures) and without appropriate safety measures in place they might be at real risk to

cause water pollution.

Water quality impacts of hazardous substances pollution

Due to the rapid development of the chemical industry that is continuously producing new chemicals,

their different and complex environmental behaviour and the long-lasting chronic toxicity of many

substances the whole mechanism of the hazardous substances pollution has not been fully clarified so

far. Hazardous substances can pose serious threat to the aquatic environment. Depending on their

concentration and the actual environmental conditions, they can cause acute (immediate) or chronic

(latent) toxicity. They usually attack one of the vital systems of the living organism, like nervous,

enzymatic, immune, muscular systems or directly the cells.

Some of the hazardous substances are persistent, slowly degradable and can accumulate in the

ecosystem. They can deteriorate habitats and biodiversity and also endanger human health as many of

these chemicals are carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogen. They can also alter proteins and different

organs, impair reproduction or disrupt endocrine systems. Many of the pollutants tend to attach to

organic compounds, they may be taken up by the organisms during feeding and introduced in the food

web through bioaccumulation and biomagnification processes. Moreover, some of the pollutants can

be attached to the soil and sediment particles and subject to subsequent resuspension and dissolution.

Therefore, hazardous substances pollution is considered as regional or even basin-wide water quality

problem and its reduction may take a longer time. Elimination of these substances needs up to date

technologies at the industrial sites, enhanced waste water treatment, good agricultural practices to

appropriately handle these substances, cessation and replacement of the hazardous substances with

others whenever possible and well developed safety system to address accidental events. Total and

dissolved concentrations of the hazardous substances are used to describe water quality. Additionally,

concentration in sediment and biota can also be applied.

4.1.3.2 Hazardous substances emissions

The Danube countries have made substantial efforts to supplement the insufficient information on the

hazardous substances pollution at the basin-wide level. Towards a better understanding and a

narrowed information gap in this field the compilation of inventories on priority substances emissions,

discharges and losses required under the EU Directive on Priority Substances (EQSD, Article 5)

provides a promising possibility. The current ICPDR activities on the hazardous substances pollution

are highly related to the recommendations of the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) Guidance

No. 28 on preparing emission inventories of priority substances and other hazardous substances.

Recently, a two-steps approach is being conducted to test the guideline for the Danube and its

tributaries. The first phase is a more general significance analysis of the priority substances and

specific parameters. The aim of this phase is to screen those substances which are clearly of higher

relevance at present and in the foreseeable future and allow to prioritise the resources and efforts

necessary for the subsequent detailed investigations. It is based on the non-compliance analysis of the

water bodies for chemical status, the trend analysis of the available water quality data and their

comparison to the Environmental Quality Standard (EQS) values. A substance is initially identified as

relevant if at least one of the following criteria is met:

the substance causes failure of good chemical status (non-compliance);

the substance has higher annual average or maximum concentration than the half of the

respective EQS;

monitoring results show an increasing temporal trend of substance concentration.

The result of this analysis will be a preliminary draft list of the relevant priority substances and other

specific parameters in the Danube Basin. This draft list will subsequently be supported by additional

information and eventually extended once the results of the recent Joint Danube Survey (JDS) 3 and



its follow-up activities are evaluated and more data are available from the countries by applying

advanced analytical methods.

The second phase is a more detailed analysis focusing on the screened relevant substances. It utilizes a

specific template that is based on the provisions of the CIS Guidance No. 28. This phase aims to

separate the point and diffuse source hazardous substances emissions. It requires point source

discharge data (municipal waste water treatment plants and industrial facilities) and observed river

loads at certain monitoring points. River loads should carefully be calculated taking into account the

uncertainties of the analytical method (e.g. concentrations below the limit of quantification or

detection) and the sampling frequency (e.g. unregistered high flow events with considerable pollutant

transport). Knowing the point source emissions and the observed river loads, assuming a certain

natural background river load and neglecting the in-stream sources and sinks would allow to roughly

estimate the total anthropogenic diffuse inputs from the catchment upstream of the monitoring points.

The complied national inventories and the finalised list of relevant priority substances and parameters

will serve as a sound basis for the elaboration of the next management plan.


The 1st DRBM Plan summarizes the measures of basin-wide importance in the waste water, industrial

and agricultural sectors to be implemented in order to reduce and/or eliminate the hazardous

substances discharges into the surface water bodies. Appropriate treatment of urban waste water and

application of BAT in the industrial plants and large agricultural farms are elementary measures and

can significantly contribute to the mitigation of hazardous contaminations. Implementation of the

UWWTD and IED in EU MS are highly beneficial for the reduction of hazardous substances

pollution. In Non-EU MS the considerable efforts made in order to develop and improve the waste

water sector and industrial technologies have also positive effects on water quality related to

hazardous substances pollution. Other EU legal documents like the Regulation on Registration,

Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), the Plant Protection Products

Regulation, the Biocidal Products Regulation, or the Pesticides Directive aim to minimize the release

of chemicals in order to protect human health and environment. For instance, they lay down rules for

the authorisation of products containing dangerous chemicals and regulating their placing on the

market, enforce substitution or exclusion of certain substances, ensure the safe application of products

containing dangerous chemicals and prescribe emission limits for the hazardous substances. The

EQSD interconnected with the WFD intends to regulate water pollution of priority substances by

setting up EQS values for the priority substances and mandating to phase out priority hazardous

substance emissions for the dischargers. Reporting on emissions, discharges and losses of these

substances is also obligatory.

The progressive development of the urban waste water sector increases the quantities of sewage sludge

that requires disposal. The SSD (currently assessed whether a revision is needed) seeks to encourage

the use of sewage sludge in agriculture and simultaneously regulates its use in such a way as to

prevent harmful effects on soil, vegetation, animals and human beings. Detailed recording is required

on the circumstances of sewage sludge application in agriculture and a set of limit values for

concentrations of heavy metals in sewage sludge intended for agricultural use and in sludge-treated

soils is assigned. Therefore, implementation of the SSD helps to avoid hazardous substances pollution

by restricting the application of contaminated sludge to agricultural fields. Management actions

similar to those of the EU MS are recommended for the Non-EU MS. Sustainable pesticide usage in

the agriculture can also be managed by some BAP measures that are on-going in both EU and Non-EU

MS.


The 1st DRBM Plan, building on the improved analytical capabilities and results from JDS 2 in 2007,

provided an improved knowledge on hazardous substances in the DRB. However, it also drew

attention to the significant data gap and uncertainty in the current knowledge on pressures due to

hazardous substances as well as their impact on water status. Danube countries have taken important

steps to fill the existing data gaps in the field of hazardous substances pollution. The recent ICPDR



investigations (particularly those related to the current JDS 3) on the priority and other hazardous

substances will provide essential information on the relevance of these substances resulting in a much

clearer picture on the pollution problem (relevant substances and their magnitude) than ever before.

The elaboration of an inventory of emissions, discharges and losses of the priority substances can help

to close information gaps on the sources. Measures under implementation in the waste water,

industrial and agricultural sectors (e.g. enhanced waste water treatment and BAT, regulated use of

sewage sludge and pesticides) can significantly contribute to the reduction of the releases of hazardous

substances.

The Danube countries have made efforts in order to prevent accidental pollutions and ensure effective

and quick responses to transboundary emergency cases. The Accident Emergency Warning System

(AEWS) was developed and is continuously operated to timely recognise emergency situations related

to hazardous substances spills. It is activated if a risk of transboundary water pollution exists and alerts

downstream countries with warning messages in order to help national authorities to put safety

measures timely into action. The alert system has been operated, maintained and enhanced by the

ICPDR Secretariat. In addition, Danube countries are collecting data on the industrial and

contaminated sites that might be at potential risk of accidental pollution caused by operation failures

or natural disasters like floods. Potential risk analysis methods are intended to be used to assess how

significant the accidental pollution hazard could be at these sites.

However, despite the substantial progress achieved in many aspects of the hazardous substances

pollution the state of the art knowledge needs to be improved and the implementation of measures

should be proceeded in the future to appropriately manage the problem. Further efforts are needed to

compile the national inventories on discharges, emissions and losses in a comparable and coordinated

way and develop a strategy to improve and harmonize the approach for the elaboration of the

inventory. In particular the lack of high quality monitoring data on priority substance discharges from

waste water effluents has to be addressed prior to the update of the inventories. This will ensure to

have a consistent picture on the point sources of the relevant hazardous substances. Further

information on in-stream concentrations and river loads via improved monitoring and application of

regionalised modelling tools that can examine sources and pathways for certain substances can help

filling knowledge gaps. The information to be received from JDS3 and its follow-up activities will

strongly facilitate the prioritisation of the hazardous substances that could potentially be relevant in the

Danube basin. Furthermore, if the same approach is applied for the tributaries of the Danube River,

additional information can be collected offering a more complete picture on the DRB.

Implementation of the measures should be continued with in compliance with the existing legislative

framework in order to reduce hazardous substances pollution releases (e.g. enhancing waste water

treatment and industrial technologies, phasing out certain substances from the market products and

promoting sustainable use of sewage sludge and pesticides in the agriculture). A thorough risk analysis

on the industrial, abandoned and mining sites in terms of accidental pollution risk is an important

future tasks as well. The real risk of the pre-screened sites with significant pollution hazard is intended

to be assessed based on checklists to determine what additional safety measures should be

implemented to minimize risk.

4.1.4 Hydromorphological alterations

Hydromorphological alterations and their effects gained vital significance in water management due to

their impacts on the abiotic sphere as well as on the ecology and ecological status of the river system.

Anthropogenic pressures resulting from various hydro-engineering measures can significantly alter the

natural structure of surface waters. This structure is essential to provide adequate habitats and

conditions for self-sustaining aquatic species. The alteration of natural hydromorphological conditions

can have negative effects on aquatic populations, which might result in failing the EU WFD

environmental objectives. More information on water bodies at risk due to hydromorphological

alterations is provided in Chapter 6.

Hydropower generation, navigation and flood protection are the key water uses that cause

hydromorphological alterations. Hydromorphological alterations can also result from anthropogenic



pressures related to urban settlements, agriculture and other sources. These drivers can influence

pressures on the natural hydromorphological structures of surface waters in an individual or

cumulative way.

The following three key hydromorphological pressure components of basin-wide importance have

been identified:

a) Interruption of river continuity and morphological alterations;

b) Disconnection of adjacent wetlands/floodplains, and;

c) Hydrological alterations, provoking changes in the quantity and conditions of flow.

In addition, potential pressures that may result from future infrastructure projects are also dealt with.

This chapter reflects findings on hydromorphological alterations and their significance from previous

EU WFD reports (DBA 2004 and DRBM Plan 2009), as well as from the most recent national data

taking into account the ongoing implementation of the JPM. The 1st DRBM Plan 2009, which was also

based on the DBA 2004, examined river continuity interruptions, disconnected wetlands/floodplains

which have a reconnection potential, as well as hydrological pressures including impounded river

sections, water abstractions and hydropeaking.

Information on the extent of these pressure types was updated in order to gain a full picture on the

current situation. In addition, information on morphological alterations to water bodies was collected

for the first time as a new element, in order to close the existing knowledge gap on this important

pressure component for surface waters. With regard to future infrastructure projects, the list of planned

hydro-engineering projects has been updated and supplemented with additional information.

In cases where countries share river stretches there is the risk that some hydromophological

components (river and habitat continuity interruption, hydrological alterations) are reported twice

because the information has been reported separately by the Danube countries. Due to this reason

bilateral harmonisation of reported data is important in order to avoid a potential distorting of the

overall assessment and discrepancies in the results.

Finally, information on hydromorphological alterations of the Danube River itself has been collected

in the frame of JDS 1 and JDS 2 and was included in the 1st DRBM Plan. Further information on the

hydromorphology of the Danube River is obtained through JDS 3 and will serve as an updated data set

for the 2nd

DRBM Plan.

4.1.4.1 Interruption of river continuity and morphological alterations

The DRBM Plan 2009 included an assessment of barriers causing longitudinal continuity interruption

for fish migration. Morphological alterations were considered as an important pressure component but

not assessed on the basin-wide scale. This data gap is closed with the collection of information on

morphological alterations to water bodies, which are directly linked to habitat degradation and now

assessed for the first time in this chapter.

Alteration of river continuity for fish migration

Table 19 provides information on the applied criteria for the pressures assessment on continuity

interruption for fish migration in the DRBD. Compared to data which was provided for the 1st DRBM

Plan in 2009, a significant number of barriers which were reported actually do not meet the criteria for

the pressures assessments. This because in 2009 e.g. also river bed stabilisation structures as of some

cm height were reported as barriers which are equipped with functional fish migration aids. This issue

has been clarified in the updated data set which was used for the assessments in this report. Due to this

reason the total number of barriers is differing from the number reported in 2009.

The key driving forces causing continuity interruption are hydropower generation (45%), flood

protection (18%) and water supply (13%). More detailed information on the number of continuity

interruptions and associated main uses is illustrated in Figure 21 for the different countries. In many

cases barriers are not linked to a single purpose due to their multifunctional characteristics (e.g.

hydropower use and navigation; hydropower use and flood protection).



Table 19: Continuity interruption for fish migration: Criteria for pressure assessment

Pressure Provoked alteration Criteria for pressure assessment

Alteration of river continuity Interruption of fish migration and

access to habitats

Anthropogenic interruption, rhithral

>0.7m height, potamal >0.3m height,

or lower in case considered as

relevant on the national level8

Figure 21: Number of continuity interruptions and associated main uses

1,018 barriers are located in DRBD rivers with catchment areas >4,000 km2 (Figure 22 and Map 10).

598 of the 1,018 continuity interruptions are dams/weirs, 296 are ramps/sills and 124 are classed as

other types of interruptions. 47% of the barriers were reported to cause a water level difference of less

than 5 m under average conditions, 21% cause a water level difference between 5 and 15 m, and 6%

are larger dams with water level differences of more than 15 m. For the remaining barriers data on the

water level difference is not available.

335 of the barriers were reported by the countries to be already equipped or to be equipped by 2015

with functional fish migration aids. 628 continuity interruptions (64%) will remain a hindrance for fish

migration as of 2015 and are currently classified as significant pressures (see Figure 22). For the

remaining barriers it either still needs to be determined whether fish migration is possible or they were

reported to be located outside of the fish area (details see Map 10).

Out of the total 703 water bodies in the DRBD, 304 are affected by barriers for fish migration, out of

which 50 are passable for fish. 246 water bodies in the DRBD are significantly altered by continuity

interruptions un-passable for fish species. This is 35% of the total number of DRBD water bodies.

8 Rhithral are the headwater sections of rivers and potamal the lowland sections.



Figure 22: Current situation on river continuity interruption for fish migration in the DRBD

For the Danube River itself, 82 barriers were identified, out of which 34 are expected to be passable

for fish by 2015. Although progress on addressing this issue is made, the Austrian/German chain of

hydropower dams, the Gabcikovo Dam (SK) and the Iron Gate Dams 1 & 2 (RO/RS) remain

significant river and habitat continuity interruptions for the Danube River, posing problems i.e. for

long and medium distance migratory fish species.

Alteration of river morphology

The EU WFD requires in Annex II the identification of significant morphological alterations to water

bodies. Elements defining river morphology include

river depth and width variation,

structure and substrate of the river bed, and

structure of the riparian zone.

Deterioration of the natural river morphology influences habitats of the aquatic flora and fauna and

can therefore impact water ecology. Aggregated information on the alteration of river morphology was

collected on the level of the water body. Since most countries have a five class system and others a

three class system in place for the assessment of the morphological condition, it was agreed to provide

information on the morphological alterations of water bodies in the following three classes:

Near-natural to slightly altered (1-2);

Moderately altered (3);

Extensively to severely altered (4-5).

In two countries a two class system is in place, whereas data is indicated separately according to the

following classification:

Near-natural;

Slightly altered to severely altered.

The pressure analysis concludes that 147 out of a total 703 river water bodies are near natural to

slightly altered (21%). 80 water bodies were reported to be moderately altered and 199 are extensively

to severely altered (Figure 23 and Map 11). 48 water bodies reported in the 2-class system are near

natural (7%) and 93 are slightly to severely altered. For the remaining water bodies no information on

the classification of river morphology is yet available.



Figure 23: Morphological alteration to water bodies of the Danube River, the DRBD tributaries and all DRBD rivers

Further harmonisation efforts are required in the future towards a better comparable assessment of

morphological alterations to the rivers in the DRBD.

4.1.4.2 Disconnected adjacent wetlands/floodplains and relevant measures

Wetlands/floodplains and their connection to river water bodies play an important role in the

functioning of aquatic ecosystems and have a positive effect on water status. Connected

wetlands/floodplains play a significant role when it comes to retention areas during flood events and

may also have positive effects on the reduction of nutrients and improvement of habitats. As an

integral part of the river system they are hotspots for biodiversity, also providing habitats for e.g. fish

and waterfowls that use such areas for spawning, nursery and feeding grounds.

The 1st DRBM Plan from 2009 concluded that compared with the 19

th Century, less than 19% of the

former floodplain area (7,845 km2 out of a once 41,605 km

2) remain in the entire DRB. This is caused

in particular due to the expansion of agricultural uses and the disconnection from water bodies due to

river engineering works concerning mainly flood control, navigation and hydropower generation.

The basis of the pressure analysis for the 1st DRBM Plan was the consideration that disconnected

wetlands/floodplains are potential pressures to aquatic ecosystems on the basin-wide level and that the

highest possible area of those which have a reconnection potential should be re-connected in order to

support the achievement of the environmental objectives. Therefore, restoration efforts and measures

were taken to facilitate the achievement of WFD environmental objectives.

The pressure analysis focuses on analysing the location and area of disconnected wetlands/floodplains

(>500 ha or which have been identified by the Danube countries of basin-wide importance) with a

definite potential for reconnection, taking into account those wetlands/floodplains which are

reconnected until 2015 as part of the JPM implementation of the 1st DRBM Plan. Since for the 1

st

DRBM Plan partly also historical wetlands/floodplains have been reported without being considered to

have a reconnection potential, the updated data set addresses now those wetlands/floodplains with a

definite reconnection potential.

In total 280,527 ha of wetlands/floodplains have been identified to have a reconnection potential9. Out

of these and as part of the JPM implementation, 89,954 ha are totally and 46,089 ha are partly

reconnected where some of the required measures were already completed but further measures are

planned, having positive effects on water status and flood mitigation. The remaining

9 The assessment includes data for MD and UA reported in 2009.



wetlands/floodplains, covering an area of 144,484 ha, have a remaining potential to be re-connected to

the Danube River and its tributaries in the next WFD cycles (see Figure 24 and Map 12).

The indication of no reconnection potential for wetlands/floodplains in many Danube countries

(Figure 24) does not indicate that there are not wetlands/floodplains with reconnection potential or that

there is no restoration taking place is these countries, since Figure 24 exclusively illustrates relevant

information for the basin-wide scale for wetlands/floodplains with an area larger 500 ha.

Figure 24: Area [ha] of DRBD wetlands/floodplains (>500 ha or of basin-wide importance) which are reconnected or with reconnection potential

Table 20 shows the number of remaining water bodies in the DRBD (in absolute numbers and

percentage) which have the potential to benefit from reconnected wetlands/floodplains or an

improvement of the water regime in the future, having a positive effect on their water status. The

absolute length of water bodies with restoration potential in relation to disconnected

wetlands/floodplains is 2,776 km (11% of total river network).

Table 20: Number of river water bodies with wetlands/floodplains, having a reconnection potential beyond 2015 as well as relation to overall number of water bodies

Number of WBs

WBs with reconnection

potential

% with reconnection

potential

Danube River 59 10 17

DRBD tributaries 644 14 2

All DRBD rivers 703 24 3

4.1.4.3 Hydrological alterations

A pressure assessment on hydrological alterations was for the first time performed for the DRBM Plan

2009. The assessment in this analysis provides updated information, taking into account the progress

achieved in reducing the hydrological pressures and impacts as part from the implementation of the

JPM.

The main remaining pressure types in the DRBD causing hydrological alterations are in numbers: 392

impoundments, 153 cases of water abstractions and 79 cases of hydropeaking. The provoked

alterations and applied criteria used for the assessment are shown in Table 21.



Table 21: Hydrological pressure types, provoked alterations and criteria for the respective pressure/impact analysis in the DRBD

Hydrological pressure Provoked alteration Criteria for pressure assessment

Impoundment

Alteration/reduction in flow

velocity and flow regime of the

river sections caused by artificial

transversal structures

Danube River: Impoundment length during low flow

conditions >10 km

Danube tributaries: Impoundment length during low

flow conditions >1 km

Water abstraction / residual

water

Alteration in quantity and

dynamics of discharge/flow in

water

Flow below dam <50% of mean annual minimum

flow10 in a specific time period (comparable with

Q95)

Hydropeaking

Alteration of flow

dynamics/discharge pattern in

river and water quantity

Water level fluctuation >1 m/day or less in the case

of known/observed negative effects on biology

The pressure analysis concludes that 624 hydrological alterations are located in the DRBD – 37 of

them in the Danube River. Details on the distribution of hydrological alterations between the different

pressure types (impoundments, water abstraction and hydropeaking) and their significance according

to the ICPDR criteria (Table 21) are outlined below as well as illustrated in Map 13, 14 and 15. Table

22 shows the number of DRBD water bodies affected by hydrological alterations (in absolute numbers

and percentage).

Table 22: Number of river water bodies significantly affected by hydrological alterations in relation to the overall water body number

Total number of WBs WBs affected by

hydrological alterations

Proportion of affected WBs

to total number (%)

Danube River 59 34 58

DRBD tributaries 644 215 33

All DRBD rivers 703 249 35

Impoundments

Impoundments are caused by barriers that - in addition to interrupting river/habitat continuity – alter

the upstream flow conditions of rivers. The character of the river is changed to lake-like types due to

decrease of flow velocities and eventual alteration of flow discharge. Additionally, impoundments can

lead to erosion and deepening processes downstream of the impounded section, inducing a decrease of

the water table and consequently, dry out of the adjacent wetlands.

The pressure analysis concludes that 392 impoundments are located in the DRBD (see Figure 25 and

Map 13) affecting 225 water bodies. It can be concluded that out of 25,207 km of all rivers in the

DRBD with catchment areas > 4,000 km2, 3,581 km are affected by impoundments (14%).

10

A pressure provoked by these uses is considered as significant when the remaining water flow below the water abstraction (e.g. below a

hydropower dam) is too small to ensure the existence and development of self-sustaining aquatic populations and therefore hinders the

achievement of the environmental objectives. Criteria for assessing the significance of alterations through water abstractions vary among EU

countries. Respective definitions on minimum flows should be available in the national RBM Plans.



Figure 25: Number and length of impoundments in the DRBD

For the Danube River, impoundments are the key hydrological pressure type causing significant

alterations. 926 km of its entire length (of 2,857 km) are impounded (representing 32% of the length)

by 28 barriers. In fact, impoundments are the major hydrological pressure type for the Danube River.

The impoundment upstream of the Iron Gate 1 Dam affects the flow of the Danube River over a length

of 310 km up to Novi Sad (11% of the entire length of the Danube River) and represents a significant

pressure. In the middle Danube Basin, the Gabcikovo Dam impounds for more than 17 km (less than

1% of the entire length) and the AT/DE chains of hydropower plants impound a major share of the

upper Danube River (approx. 269 rkm or around 9%). However, significant free-flowing stretches are

located upstream of Novi Sad to the Gabcikovo Dam and downstream of the Iron Gate 2 Dam to the

Black Sea.

Water abstractions

Water abstractions can significantly reduce the flow and quantity of water and impact the water status

in case where the minimum ecological flow of rivers is not guaranteed. In the DRBD, the key water

uses causing significant alterations through water abstractions are mainly hydropower generation

(73%), public water supply (6%), cooling purposes for electricity production (3%), agriculture,

forestry and irrigation (3%) and others.

The pressure analysis concludes that in total 153 significant water abstractions are causing alterations

in water flow in DRBD rivers (Figure 26 and Map 14). 110 water bodies are affected by these

pressures. The Danube River itself is only impacted by alterations through water abstraction at

Gabcikovo hydropower dam (bypass channel) and water abstractions in Germany as well as Hungary.



Figure 26: Number of significant water abstractions in the Danube River, DRBD tributaries and all DRBD rivers with catchment areas >4,000 km2

Hydropeaking

Hydropeaking is a pressure type that occurs in the DRBD, stemming from hydropower generation for

the provision of peak electricity supply resulting in artificial water level fluctuation. Data was

collected based on the ICPDR criterion (Table 21), whereas in total 79 cases of hydropeaking are

causing significant water level fluctuations larger than 1 m/day below a hydropower plant or less in

the case of known negative effects on biology (see Figure 27 and Map 15). Overall, 78 water bodies

are affected by hydropeaking, one of them located at the Upper Danube.

Figure 27: Number of significant cases of hydropeaking in the DRBD

4.1.4.4 Future infrastructure projects

In addition to already existing hydromorphological alterations, a considerable number of future

infrastructure projects (FIPs) are at different stages of planning and preparation throughout the entire

DRBD. These projects, if implemented without consideration to effects on ecology, are likely to

provoke impacts on water status due to hydromorphological alterations.



A list of FIPs of basin-wide importance has been compiled for the 1st DRBM Plan and was updated for

this analysis for the time horizon 2021 (see Annex 3). The following criteria were applied for the data

collection (Table 23):

Table 23: Criteria for the collection of future infrastructure projects for the Danube River and other DRBD rivers with catchment areas >4.000 km2

Danube River Other DRBD rivers with catchment areas >4.000

km2

Criteria

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and/or

Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) are

performed for the project

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and/or

Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) are

performed for the project

or and

project is expected to provoke transboundary

effects

project is expected to provoke transboundary

effects

All FIPs (until 2021) including brief descriptions (if provided) and are compiled in Annex 3 and Map

16. The pressure analysis concludes that 51 FIPs have been reported for the DRBD. 36 of them are

located in the Danube River itself. In total 36 (71%) are related to navigation; 11 (21%) to flood

protection, and 4 (8%) to hydropower generation (see Map 16).

Therefore, it can be concluded that navigation and flood protection, followed by hydropower

generation, are the key drivers that may provoke impacts on water bodies in the DRBD by 2021. For

21 out of all reported projects (41%), deterioration of water status is expected and therefore

exemptions according to WFD Article 4.7 are required. Details are summarised in Annex 3.

Information on the economic relevance of different sector, including hydropower and inland

navigation, can be obtained from the economic analysis (Chapter 8).

4.1.5 Other issues

4.1.5.1 Quality and quantity aspects of sediments

The 1st DRBM Plan outlines conclusions on the way forward regarding sediment management in the

DRB and respective actions to be taken for upcoming RBM cycles.

On sediment quality, the characterisation in the Danube is primarily based on the results of the Joint

Danube Surveys (JDS 1 and 2). The monitoring activities discovered that while concentrations of

certain substances (organochlorinated compounds) in the solid phase were at low levels, heavy metals

and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were occasionally found at elevated concentrations requiring

further concern. This issue is investigated during JDS 3 and the results will be introduced in the 2nd

DRBM Plan.

With regard to sediment quantity, the 1st DRBM Plan concluded that at the present the sediment

balance of most large rivers within the DRB can be characterised as disturbed or severely altered.

Therefore, attention should be given to ensuring the sediment continuum (improving existing barriers

and avoiding additional interruptions). However, the availability of sufficient and reliable data on

sediment transport is a prerequisite for any future decisions on sediment management in DRB. Hence,

to propose appropriate measures for improving the situation, a sediment balance for the DRB has to be

developed and additional investigations are needed to identify the significance of sediment transport

on the Danube basin-wide scale.

In order to address the indicated issues, further data on sediments for the Danube will be gained in the

frame of JDS 3, where the monitoring activities also include investigations on quality and quantity

aspects of sediments. However, for obtaining a full picture a specific international project activity on

sediment management is needed. Currently, work is ongoing to elaborate a project proposal in

cooperation with relevant sectors (i.e. hydropower, navigation) to be submitted to an appropriate call



of an adequate funding program. The results of the project will be integrated in subsequent RBM

cycles.

4.1.5.2 Invasive alien species

In the 1st DRBM Plan it was highlighted that the Danube River Basin is very vulnerable to invasive

species given its direct linkages with other large water bodies (Southern Invasive Corridor connecting

Black Sea through the Danube - Danube/Main/Rhine Canal - Rhine with the North Sea). The Danube

is exposed to an intensive colonisation of invasive species and further spreading in both north-west

and south-east directions throughout the basin. Results of the JDS 2 showed that invasive alien species

(IAS) have become a major concern for the Danube and that their further classification and analysis is

essential for an effective river basin management.

To achieve a common consensus on how to assess the presence of the invasive species in the Danube

and to decide whether the ecological status of the Danube is really significantly impacted by neozoa,

the ICPDR is developing a “Guidance paper on Invasive Alien Species as a significant water

management issue” for the Danube River Basin. The ICPDR Monitoring and Assessment Expert

Group (MA EG) adopted a joint position that IAS should not be considered en-bloc as having a

negative impact on the ecological status unless a detailed integrative evaluation would prove this.

The MA EG is collecting data on the distribution of non-indigenous species within the DRB with the

intention to carry out the assessment of the level of invasiveness for the aquatic taxa. To ensure the

comparability of results and avoid bias due to different methods used for taxonomic investigations,

only the data from routine national monitoring and Danube surveys (JDS 1, AquaTerra and JDS 2 and

JDS 3) are taken into the consideration. The JDS 2 data on macroinvertebrates were used to assess the

level of biocontamination at JDS 2 sites by the BioContamination Index (SBC Index – Arbačiauskas et

al. 2008) (see Map 17). The SBC assessment is derived from data on number of non-indigenous

species and their abundance in comparison to a total number of species and community abundance.

The index value ranges from 0 (“no” biocontamination) to 4 (“severe” biocontamination). It should be

emphasized that the assessment of biological contamination, as a reflection of the level of pressure

caused by the IAS, should be observed independently from the ecological status assessment.

The assessment based on calculation of the mean value of SBC for the left and right river side showed

high level of biocontamination along the Danube River. Out of 75 JDS 2 sites that were assessed using

the SBC Index, 52 were found to be severely contaminated (SBC=4), 11 sites were assessed as highly

biocontaminated (SBC=3), seven sites were assessed as moderately biocontaminated (SBC=2), while

only for 4 sites low level of biocontamination has been recorded (SBC=1). At one site (site 1,

Upstream Iller) non-native species were not recorded (SBC=0). Mean values of the SBC Index ranged

from 2.93 for the Lower Danube, over 3.74 for the Upper Danube to 3.86 for the Middle Danube. The

more positive situation in the Lower Danube could be explained by the fact that for the Lower Danube

Ponto-Caspic species are considered as native, while for the Middle and Upper Danube, species of

Ponto-Caspic distribution are non-native.

The first analysis using SBC index confirmed the importance of the proper assessment of IAS in the

DRB. It is necessary to upgrade this analysis using JDS 3 data and other available data to obtain a

longer-term overview, to test other metrics and to expand the assessment to other biological quality

elements. Such comprehensive analysis will lead to the identification of the most relevant invasive

species in the DRB (black list) which is a key prerequisite for deciding on the impact of IAS on the

ecological status.

4.2 Surface waters: lakes, transitional waters, coastal waters

In the DRBD, four lakes are identified as being of basin-wide importance: Neusiedlersee/Fertö-tó

consisting of two water bodies (AT/HU), Lake Balaton (HU), Lake Yalpug (UA) and Lake Razim /

Razelm (RO), which was originally marine water, gradually cut off from the Black Sea and has now

turned into a freshwater lake.



Table 24 summarises whether significant hydromorphological alterations and/or chemical pressures

are affecting the DRBD lakes (analysed as of 2013).

Table 24: Presence of significant hydromorphological alterations and chemical pressures affecting DRBD lakes

Country Significant hydromorphological

alteration

Significant chemical

pressure

Neusiedler See / Fertö-tó AT/HU No No

Lake Balaton HU No No

Lake Razim /Razelm RO No No

Lake Yalpug UA No information No information

Transitional waters are located in Romania and Ukraine within the DRBD and two transitional water

bodies were reported by Romania – Lake Sinoe and the Black Sea waters from the Chilia mouth to

Periboina. None of the two transitional water bodies located in Romania were reported to be under

significant pressures.

With regard to the 4 coastal water bodies located in Romania none was reported to be under

significant pressure.

4.3 Groundwater

This chapter summarises the significant pressures that have been identified for the 11 transboundary

GWBs of basin-wide importance. An indicative overview of these pressures is presented in Table 25

whereas detailed information on the relevant pressures for each groundwater body is given in Annex 5.

Table 25 also provides an overview of the results of the risk assessment carried out in 2004 and 2013,

of the status assessment made in 2009 for the 1st DRBM Plan and of the significant pressures in 2009

and the future significant pressures expected by 2021.

The basic principles and assessment of pollution sources for surface waters described in Chapter 4.1

also provide relevant background information for groundwater due to the very close interrelation

between the two water categories. Specifically, synergies between groundwater and the three SWMIs

of organic, nutrient and hazardous substance pollution are of importance.



Table 25: Risk assessment, status assessment and analysis of pressures for level A GWBs

The risk 2021 data for Hungarian GWBs are preliminary

* The status information is of low confidence as it is based on the risk assessment.

No of monitoring

sites Total number of monitoring sites (quality and quantity) – Reference year 2012/2013

Status 2009 Good / Poor

Status Pressure

Types 2009

Indicates the significant pressures for not achiving good status in 2009. AR = artificial

recharge, DS = diffuse sources, PS = point sources, OP = other significant pressures, WA

= water abstractions.

Risk 20042015 Risk / - (which means ‘no risk’). Risk of not achieving good status in 2015

Exemptions from

2015 Indicates whether there are exemptions for the GWB from acheving good status in 2015.

Risk 20132021 Risk / - (which means ‘no risk’). Risk of not achieving good status in 2021

Risk Pressure

types 2021

Indicates the significant pressures for the risk of not achieving good status in 2021. AR =

artificial recharge, DS = diffuse sources, PS = point sources, OP = other significant

pressures, WA = water abstractions.

4.3.1 Groundwater quality

Diffuse and/or point sources of pollution were reported as significant pressures causing risk of not

achieving good groundwater chemical status in 2021 for 6 national shares which are located in 4

transboundary GWBs of basin wide importance. Seven transboundary GWBs (and in total 17 national

shares) are not at risk of failing good chemical status in 2021 and therefore not subject to significant

pressures on groundwater quality.

The overall assessment of significant pressures on the chemical status in 2009 identified pollution by

nitrates from diffuse sources as the key factor. The major sources of the diffuse pollution were:



agricultural activities,

non-sewered population, and

urban land use.

These challenges still remain causing risk of failing good chemical status in 2021 for nitrates but also

for ammonium. Furthermore, in the national parts of 2 transboundary GWBs point sources of pollution

are now identified as significant pressures; in particular:

leakages from waste disposal,

leakages from contaminated sites,

leakages from oil industry infrastructure, as well as

mining water discharges.

4.3.2 Groundwater quantity

The assessment of pressures on groundwater quantity of the 11 transboundary GWBs of basin-wide

importance in 2009 showed that over-abstraction prevented the achievement of good quantitative

status for three GWBs. Compared to the status assessment in 2009, three national shares which were in

poor status are still at risk, one (HU-8) which was in poor status is no longer at risk and one (SK-11)

which was in good status is now at risk of failing good status in 2021.

In 2013 the over-abstraction still posed a significant pressure on 4 national shares situated within two

GWBs caused mainly by:

Abstractions for agriculture

Abstractions for public water supply

Abstractions by industry

Nine transboundary GWBs of basin wide importance (19 national shares) are not at risk of failing

good groundwater quantitative status in 2021 and therefore do not exhibit significant quantitative

pressures.



5 Artificial and Heavily Modified Water Bodies

Economic development and social needs have substantially physically changed rivers and other waters

e.g. for flood control, navigation, hydropower generation, water supply and other purposes. Surface

waters have been used as an economic resource and canals and reservoirs have been created where no

water bodies previously existed.

One of the key objectives of the WFD is to ensure that water bodies meet ‘good ecological status’.

However, aquatic ecosystems which are part of modified water bodies may not be able to meet this

standard considering the uses connected with such water bodies. This is why the WFD allows to

designate some of their surface waters as heavily modified water bodies or artificial water bodies

whereby specific environmental objectives are applied. They will need to meet the ‘good ecological

potential’ criterion for these ecosystems and ‘good chemical status’. However, artificial and heavily

modified water bodies will still need to achieve the same low level of chemical contamination as other

water bodies. A series of conditions have to be met to designate water bodies in these categories.

5.1 Approach for the designation of Heavily Modified Water Bodies

WFD Article 5 and Annex II allows inter alia for the identification and designation of artificial and

heavily modified water bodies. A surface water body is considered as artificial when created by human

activity. Heavily modified water body (HMWB) means a body of surface water which as a result of

physical alterations by human activity is substantially changed in character, as designated by the

Member State in accordance with the provisions of Annex II.

According to those provisions, EU MS may designate a body of surface water as artificial or heavily

modified, when:

• its hydromorphological characteristics have substantially changed so that good ecological

status cannot be achieved and ensured;

• the changes needed to the hydromorphological characteristics to achieve good ecological

status would have a significant adverse effect on the wider environment or specific uses;

• the beneficial objectives served by the artificial or modified characteristics of the water body

cannot, for reasons of technical feasibility or disproportionate costs, reasonably be achieved

by other means, which are a significantly better environmental option.

The designation of a water body as heavily modified or artificial means that instead of ecological

status, an alternative environmental objective, namely ecological potential, has to be achieved for

those water bodies, as well as good chemical status.

The DBA 2004 first provisionally identified HMWBs, and artificial water bodies (AWBs) were

presented on the basis of specific basin-wide criteria. For the DRBM Plan 2009, the Danube countries

reported the nationally identified artificial and heavily modified water bodies. Updated information on

the designation of AWBs and HMWBs was reported by the Danube countries for the 2013 DBA.

5.1.1 Surface waters: rivers

The 1st DRBM Plan included the final HMWB designation for EU MS. The Non EU MS performed a

provisional identification based on criteria outlined in the DBA 2004, whereas all water bodies have

been fully considered for the designation.

For the 1st DRBM Plan (Part A), the designation of HMWBs for rivers and transitional waters was

performed for:

a. The Danube River;

b. Tributaries in the DRBD >4,000 km2.



For the Danube River, the Danube countries agreed on a harmonised procedure for the final HMWB

designation (the designation for HR, RS and UA was provisional) and on specific criteria for a step by

step approach.

The HMWB designations for the tributaries are based on national methods and respective reported

information. However, the preconditions for the basin-wide final HMWB designation (regarding both

the Danube River and tributaries >4,000 km2) are to follow the EC HMWB CIS

11 guidance document.

The Tisza Lake is a heavily modified river water body according to the definition of the EU WFD

CIS Reporting Guidance Document.

5.1.2 Surface waters: lakes, transitional waters and coastal waters

The HMWB/AWB designations for coastal and lake water bodies are based on national methods and

the respective reported information is summarised below.

5.2 Results of the designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies

5.2.1 Surface waters: rivers

Table 26 and Figure 28 provide information on the designation of DRBD rivers into Natural Water

Bodies, HMWB and AWB. Out of overall 703 river water bodies in the entire DRBD (Danube River

and DRBD Tributaries) a total number of 247 are designated heavily modified (230 final and 17

provisional HMWBs). These are 35% of the water bodies. This means that 11,551 rkm out of a total

25,207 rkm are heavily modified (39% final HMWBs and 3 % provisional HMWBs) due to significant

physical alterations. Further, 25 water bodies are AWBs. The results are also illustrated in Map 18.

Table 26: Designated HMWBs and AWBs in the DRBD (expressed in rkm, number of water bodies and percentage)

Rivers – Danube River Basin District (DRBD)

Total number of WBs: 703 Total number of HMWBs: 247

(230 final and 17 provisional HMWB) Proportion HMWB (number): 35%

Total WB length (km)12: 27,208 Total HMWB length (km): 11,551

(10,683 final and 868 provisional HMWB) Proportion HMWB (length): 42%

The Danube River

Total number of WBs: 59 Total number of HMWBs: 35

(33 final and 2 provisional HMWB) Proportion HMWB (number): 59%

Total length (km): 2,857 Total HMWB length (km)13: 1,810

(1,764 final and 46 provisional HMWB) Proportion HMWB (length): 63%

11

EC HMWB CIS: European Commission’s Common Implementation Strategy for HMWB.

12 Including double-counting for transboundary water bodies.

13 Double-counting of the length of transboundary water bodies was avoided for the Danube.



Figure 28: HMWBs, AWBs and natural water bodies in the DRBD, indicated in number of river water bodies and length (River km)

HMWB designation for the Danube River

Out of a total of 59 Danube River water bodies, 33 water bodies were designated as heavily modified

by the EU MS. 2 were designated as provisionally heavily modified by the Non EU MS (see Table

26). Therefore, 1,810 rkm of the entire Danube River length (63%) have been designated as HMWB.

No artificial water body has been designated for the Danube River itself. The results are illustrated in

Map 18.

5.2.2 Surface waters: lakes, transitional waters and coastal waters

Out of 5 lake water bodies, none was designated as heavily modified or as artificial water body. Out of

2 transitional water bodies, none was designated as heavily modified or as artificial. Out of the 4

coastal water bodies, 2 were designated as heavily modified and none was identified as artificial.

The most significant canals, largely intended for navigation, are the Main-Danube Canal in DE, the

Danube-Tisza-Danube Canal System in RS and the Danube-Black Sea Canal in RO.



6 Impacts and Risk Assessment

According to the provisions in Annex II 1.5 WFD an assessment is necessary on "the likelihood that

surface water bodies within a river basin district will fail to meet the environmental quality objectives

set for the bodies under Article 4" and that the aim of this risk assessment is to "optimise the design of

both the monitoring programmes required under Article 8, and the programmes of measures required

under Article 11". Also for groundwater it is mentioned in Annex II 2.1 and 2.2. that groundwater

bodies need to be characterised in order to "assess the degree to which they are at risk of failing to

meet the objectives for each groundwater body under Article 4".

In Annex II 1.5 it is mentioned that the risk assessment should be based on the results of the pressure

and impact analysis as well as any other relevant information. Thus next to the assessment of impacts

(for which the results of the monitoring campaigns as well as the status assessment from the past RBM

Plan can be used), it is necessary to take into account the long-term trends (e.g. climate change) and

new developments (e.g. new infrastructure but also future economic developments) for assessing if the

environmental objectives will be reached by 2021. Thus if a water body is at present in good status but

the economic trends show that the population will increase, urban sprawl will be growing, the

agriculture will increase and intensify, there may be a risk of deterioration of good status in future and

measures may need to be taken.

The situation is similar for groundwater. Besides reaching good status there can also be significant and

sustained upward pollution trends. The issue with GW is also that the resilience and the response times

are different, as well as the behaviour of the groundwater bodies in relation to the pressures.

Nevertheless, the relationship between status and risk is conceptually the same for surface and

groundwater and it has to be repeatedly addressed in each planning cycle.

6.1 Monitoring networks for surface waters and groundwater

6.1.1 Surface waters

In line with the provisions of the DRPC, the TNMN in the DRB has been in operation since 1996 (see

Map 19). The major objective of the TNMN is to provide an overview of the overall status and long-

term changes of surface water and, where necessary, groundwater status in a basin-wide context (with

particular attention paid to the transboundary pollution load). In view of the link between the nutrient

loads of the Danube and the eutrophication of the Black Sea, the monitoring of sources and pathways

of nutrients in the DRB and the effects of measures taken to reduce the nutrient loads into the Black

Sea are an important component of the scheme.

The TNMN laboratories have a free choice of analytical method, providing they are able to

demonstrate that the method in use meets the required performance criteria. To ensure the quality of

collected data, a basin-wide Analytical Quality Control (AQC) programme is regularly organized by

the ICPDR.

To meet the requirements of both the WFD and the DRPC, the TNMN for surface waters consists of

the following elements:

Surveillance monitoring I: Monitoring of surface water status;

Surveillance monitoring II: Monitoring of specific pressures;

Operational monitoring;

Investigative monitoring.

Surveillance monitoring II is a joint monitoring activity of all ICPDR Contracting Parties, which

produces data on concentrations and loads of selected parameters in the Danube and major tributaries.

Surveillance monitoring I and operational monitoring is based on collection of data on the status of

surface water and groundwater bodies in the DRBD, to be published in the DRBM Plan. Investigative



monitoring is primarily a national task. However, on the basin-wide level, the JDS serve the

investigative monitoring as required e.g. for harmonisation of existing monitoring methodologies;

filling information gaps in monitoring networks; testing new methods; or checking the impact of

“new” chemical substances in different matrices. JDSs are carried out every 6 years.

6.1.2 Groundwater

The transnational groundwater management activities in the DRBD were initiated in 2002 and were

triggered by the implementation of the WFD. Monitoring of the 11 transboundary GWBs of basin-

wide importance has been integrated into the TNMN of the ICPDR. For groundwater monitoring

under the TNMN (GW TNMN) a 6-year reporting cycle has been set, which is in line with reporting

requirements under the WFD. GW TNMN includes both quantitative and chemical (quality)

monitoring. It shall provide the necessary information to: assess groundwater status; identify trends in

pollutant concentrations; support GWB characterisation and the validation of the risk assessment;

assess whether drinking water protected area objectives are achieved and support the establishment

and assessment of the programmes of measures and the effective targeting of economic resources. To

select the monitoring sites, a set of criteria has been applied by the countries, such as aquifer type and

characteristics (porous, karst and fissured, confined and unconfined groundwater) and depth of the

GWB (for deep GWBs, the flexibility in the design of the monitoring network is very limited). The

flow direction was also taken into consideration by some countries, as well as the existence of

associated drinking water protected areas or ecosystems (aquatic and/or terrestrial).

The qualitative monitoring determinants of GW TNMN, which are set as mandatory by the WFD,

include dissolved oxygen, pH-value, electrical conductivity, nitrates and ammonium. The

measurement of temperature and set of major (trace) ions is recommended as they can be helpful to

validate the Article 5 risk assessment and conceptual models. Selective determinants (e.g. heavy

metals and relevant basic radionuclides) would be needed for assessing natural background

concentrations. It is also recommended to monitor the water level at all chemical monitoring points in

order to describe (and interpret) the physical status of the site and to help in interpreting (seasonal)

variations or trends in chemical composition of groundwater. In addition to the core parameters,

selective determinants will need to be monitored at specific locations, or across GWBs, where the risk

assessments indicate a risk of failing to achieve WFD objectives. Transboundary water bodies shall

also be monitored for those parameters that are relevant for the protection of all uses supported by

groundwater.

As regards quantitative monitoring, WFD requires only the measurement of groundwater levels but the

ICPDR has also recommended monitoring of spring flows; flow characteristics and/or stage levels of

surface water courses during drought periods; stage levels in significant groundwater dependent

wetlands and lakes and water abstraction as optional parameters.

6.2 Risk assessment for surface waters: rivers, lakes, transitional waters and coastal waters

This chapter shows the risk of failure to achieve by 2021 the WFD environmental objective for rivers,

lakes, transitional waters and coastal waters. The risk analysis was made at the national level taking

into account the ongoing pressures persisting from the past and the pressures which may emerge in

future due to long-term trends and new developments.

6.2.1 Rivers

Figure 29 illustrates the length of the river water bodies having the risk of failure to achieve a good

ecological status or ecological potential by 2021. Figure 30 shows the length of the river water bodies

having the risk of failure to achieve good chemical status by 2021. Altogether 25,582 km of river

water bodies were evaluated. 11,840 km of rivers will be not at risk of failure to achieve good

ecological status or ecological potential (42%) and 16,192 km of rivers will be not at risk of failure to

achieve good chemical status (60%).



Figure 29: Risk assessment – Ecological Status

Figure 30: Risk assessment – Chemical Status

The reasons of the risk of failure to achieve a good ecological status / potential or good chemical status

by 2021 expressed in terms of pressures by organic pollution, nutrient pollution, hazardous substances

pollution and hydromorphological alterations are shown on Figure 3114

. This figure distinguishes

between the ongoing pressures persisting from the past and the pressures which may emerge in future

due to long-term trends and new developments. Further detailed information on the different pressures

can be obtained from Chapter 4.

14 In this graph, the length in kilometres of river water bodies reported for level A (rivers with catchment size larger than 4,000km²) affected

by each pressure type are summed up, so the total (100%) includes duplicated.river water bodies if they are located on border rivers or are

affected by multiple pressures.



Figure 31: Risk by pressures

6.2.2 Lakes

Three lakes - consisting of four lake water bodies - were evaluated. None of them was at risk of failure

to achieve a good ecological status / ecological potential and good chemical status by 2021.

6.2.3 Transitional waters

Two transitional water bodies were evaluated. Lake Sinoe and Chilia-Periboina were not at risk of

failure to achieve a good ecological status / ecological potential and good chemical status by 2021.

6.2.4 Coastal waters

Altogether four coastal water bodies were evaluated. None of them was at risk of failure to achieve a

good ecological status / ecological potential and good chemical status by 2021.

6.2.5 Gaps and uncertainties

The results of chemical status assessment in future can be affected by several factors. The most

obvious is the change in concentrations of priority substances. As a result of implementation of the

programme of measures a decreasing trend is expected but an increase in concentration of a particular

substance due to a specific pollution in future cannot be excluded. There is however a number of other

factors influencing the chemical status assessment caused not by changes of priority substance

concentrations in water bodies but by differences in the assessment methodologies and approaches

applied in the past and future.

In 2013 Directive 2013/39/EU amending Directives 2000/60/EC and 2008/105/EC as regards priority

substances in the field of water policy has been adopted. This directive set revised environmental

quality standards with effect from 22 December 2015, with the aim of achieving good surface water

chemical status in relation to those substances by 22 December 2021 by means of programmes of

measures included in the 2015 river basin management plans. Directive 2013/39/EU also identified

new priority substances with effect from 22 December 2018, with the aim of achieving good surface

water chemical status in relation to those substances by 22 December 2027 and preventing

deterioration in the chemical status of surface water bodies in relation to those substances. It is

apparent that changing EQS and introducing new substances can induce negative changes in chemical

status even in case when the concentrations of substances listed in 2008/105/EC would have a

decreasing trend.



The other methodological reasons are highlighted in the “EC Report on the Implementation of the

Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) - River Basin Management Plans”. This report points out

that most of the Member States reported very limited failures for some of the priority substances. A

large proportion of water bodies (above 40%) have not been assessed for chemical status and many

monitoring programmes seem to be very limited in terms of number of substances and monitoring

stations. As a consequence, the picture presented by the chemical status assessment of the first RBMPs

is incomplete. This is also the case for the first DRBMP showing no data on chemical status for 21%

of water bodies. Moreover, not all substances from the Directive 2008/105/EC have been assessed in

all countries due to methodological problems.

The other issue highlighted in the “EC Report on the Implementation of the Water Framework

Directive (2000/60/EC) - River Basin Management Plans” was that only few Member States opted to

apply, according to the Article 3(2 a) of the Directive 2008/105/EC, EQSs for mercury and its

compounds, hexachlorobenzene and/or hexachlorobutadiene in biota. No Member State has set more

stringent EQSs for mercury in water as required by the Directive 2008/105/EC where the biota

standards are not used. The lack of detection of the mercury problem in most of the Member States

might be a consequence of the insufficient monitoring practices and of the fact that more stringent

standards for mercury in water have not been set. This is also the case for the Danube as the issue of

mercury in biota can be a chemical time bomb. In case better information will available due to better

monitoring performance the status of a water body can change negatively having an adverse impact on

communicating progress in the implementation of the WFD.

All those specific reasons mentioned above can lead to a quite realistic possibility of an increase of the

number of water bodies not achieving good chemical status not because the programme of measures

failed but as a consequence of having available more comprehensive information on polluting

substances in surface waters (when compared to information that was available in 2009).

6.3 Risk Assessment for groundwater

The risk assessment made for the 11 groundwater bodies of basin-wide importance was produced at

the national level and it was based on the results of the pressure and impact analysis using also any

other relevant available information. In addition, it was necessary to take into account the long-term

trends and new developments, which might pose a significant pressure in future.

6.3.1 Groundwater quality

Out of 11 transboundary GWBs of basin-wide importance (all 23 national parts were evaluated), a risk

of failure to achieve good chemical status by 2021 was identified in 6 national shares (located in 4

different transboundary GWBs of basin wide importance). In 5 national shares the failing parameter is

nitrates and in one national share the failing parameter is ammonium. Compared to the status

assessment of 2009 now also 2 additional national shares (MD-3 [nitrates] and SK8 [ammonium]),

which were reported as of good chemical status in 2009, exhibit risk of failing good status in 2021.

Reasons for the risk are commonly a failured general assessment of the GWB as a whole. In one

national share (HU-7) groundwater also causes a failure of achieving the environmental objectives of

associated aquatic ecosystems and in another national share (SK-8) environmentally and statistically

significant increasing trends were detected.

Seven transboundary GWBs as a whole (and in total 17 national shares of transboundary GWBs) were

not reported of being at risk of failing good chemical status in 2021, which were already reported of

good chemical status in 2009. A comparison between previous status and risk results and the actual

situation is given in Table 25. Detailed information is presented in Table 27.

6.3.2 Groundwater quantity

Out of 11 transboundary GWBs of basin-wide importance (all 23 national parts were evaluated), the

risk of failure to achieve good quantitative status by 2021 was identified in 4 national shares (located

in two transboundary GWBs). Compared to the status assessment in 2009, three national shares which



were in poor status are still at risk, one (HU-8) which was in poor status is no longer at risk and one

(SK-11) which was in good status is now at risk of failing good status in 2021.

Commonly reported reasons for the risk of failure in 2021 are exceedances of the available

groundwater resource. In one national share (HU-11) there is a groundwater caused risk of a failure of

achieving the environmental objectives of associated aquatic ecosystems in 2021, in two national

shares significant damage to groundwater dependent ecosystems are at least expected and in another

national share (RS-7) the use of groundwater for drinking water purposes is or might be significantly

affected causing a failure of achieving good quantitative status in 2021.

Nine transboundary GWBs of basin wide importance (19 national shares) are not at risk of failing

good groundwater quantitative status in 2021 and therefore do not exhibit significant quantitative

pressures. Eight out of these transboundary GWBs (18 national shares) were already of good

quantitative status in 2009.

A comparison between previous status and risk results and the actual situation is given in Table 25.

Detailed information is presented in Table 28.



Table 27: Reasons for risk of failing Good Chemical Status in 2021 for the ICPDR GW-bodies

The risk data for Hungarian GWBs are preliminary



Table 28: Reasons for risk of failing Good Quantitative Status in 2021 for the ICPDR GW-bodies

The risk data for Hungarian GWBs are preliminary



7 Inventory of Protected Areas

Protected areas are often directly linked with surface and/or groundwater bodies and their status is

therefore also depending on the management practices and status of such water bodies, and vice versa.

Such areas shelter valuable habitats for flora and fauna, and can provide numerous ecosystem services.

Objectives for protected areas are also determined by the WFD in Article 4, requiring to “achieve

compliance with any standards and objectives at the latest 15 years after the date of entry into force of

this directive unless otherwise specified in the Community legislation under which the individual

protected areas have been established”.

The protected areas to be considered are listed in WFD Annex IV. Furthermore, the WFD requires to

establish a “register or registers of all areas lying within each river basin district which have been

designated as requiring special protection under specific Community legislation for the protection of

their surface water and groundwater or for the conservation of habitats and species directly depending

on water” (WFD Article 6).

At the Danube basin-wide scale, protected areas for the protection of habitats and species, nutrient

sensitive areas, including areas designated as nitrates vulnerable zones, and other protected areas in

Non EU MS have been compiled and are updated. Other types of protected areas according to WFD

Article 6, Annex IV (e.g. areas designated for the abstraction of water intended for human

consumption under Article 7 WFD, areas designated for the protection of economically significant

aquatic species, or bodies of water designated as recreational waters, including areas designated as

bathing waters under Directive 76/160/EEC) are not addressed at the basin-wide level but are subject

to national registers.

Table 29 provides an overview on the registers of protected areas required by WFD Article 6 and

Annex IV to be kept under review and up to date. The table furthermore provides information whether

the register was established and is regularly reviewed at the Danube basin-wide and/or national level.

Table 29: Overview on established registers for protected areas

Type of protected area Corresponding legislation

Register established and regularly reviewed at

Comment Danube basin-wide

level (Part A) National level

(Part B)

Areas designated for the abstraction

of water intended for human consumption

EU Drinking Water Directive

80/778/EEC as amended by Directive 98/83/EC

- x -

Areas designated for the protection

of economically significant aquatic species

EU Shellfish Directive

79/923/EEC and Freshwater Fish Directive 78/659/EEC

- -

Repealed by EU WFD

2000/60/EC with effect from December 2013

Bodies of water designated as

recreational waters, including areas

designated as bathing waters

EU Bathing Waters Directive

76/160/EEC - x

Repealed by Directive

2006/7/EC

Nitrates vulnerable zones EU Nitrates Directive

91/676/EEC x x

Included in 1st DRBM

Plan and to be updated

for 2nd DRBM Plan

Nutrient sensitive areas EU UWWT Directive

91/271/EEC x x

Entire DRB is

considered as a

catchment area for the

sensitive area under

Article 5(5) of

Directive 91/271/EEC

Areas designated for the protection

of habitats or species where the

maintenance or improvement of the status of water is an important

factor in their protection

EU Habitats Directive

92/43/EEC and EU Birds Directive 79/409/EEC

x x Water-relevant Natura

2000 sites

Other protected areas in Non EU

Member States (e.g. Nature and

Biosphere Reserves) - x x

Relevant for Non EU

Member States



Map 24 illustrates protected areas >500 ha designated for the protection of habitats or species where

maintenance or improvement of the water status is an important factor in their protection (including

Natura 2000 sites)15

. Furthermore, the map visualises protected areas in the Non EU MS. Annex 6

includes a detailed inventory of the protected areas as illustrated in Map 24.

Figure 32 provides an overview of these protected area types for the DRBD. Out of a total of 1,255

protected areas, 873 (68%) have been designated following the EU Habitats Directive and 334 (26%)

are bird protected areas (EU Birds Directive). 43 (3%) areas are protected under both the Habitat as

well as Birds Directive. All of them are Natura 2000 sites designated in EU MS according to the EU

WFD. 41 (3%) are protected area types reported by Non EU MS and are mainly nature reserves and

Biosphere Reserves.

Figure 32: Overview on number of WFD water relevant protected areas under the EU Habitats Directive and EU Birds Directive including reported areas for Non EU MS

15

Natura 2000 designation under the EU Directive 92/43/EEC and Directive 79/409/EEC.



8 Economic analysis

The WFD requires that river basins are also described in economic terms. This "economic analysis",

which examines the economic, but also the social circumstances surrounding the use of the Danube´s

water, forms a kind of foundation to base the following steps upon. This means that the planning of

measures, for example, should take into account the socio-economic conditions in the basin, so as not

to put the possible burden of measures disproportionally high on a single user group, or an especially

vulnerable social group.

Economic principles are addressed in WFD Article 5 (and Annex III) and Article 9. A first economic

analysis of water uses was carried out in 2004 for the DBA based upon the requirements of Article 5.

A summary of the economic analysis of water use was included in the 1st DRBM Plan 2009 as

required by WFD Article 13 and Annex VII, referring to Article 5 and Annex III. The WFD requires

in Article 5 that the economic analysis shall be reviewed, and if necessary updated, at the latest 13

years after the date of entry into force of the WFD and every six years thereafter.

Furthermore, Article 9 requires that by 2010, EU MS had to take account of the principle of cost-

recovery (CR), including environmental and resource costs (ERC). In addition to this direct

requirement, the WFD refers implicitly to economic principles in many of its Articles.

8.1 The 2013 DBA in the context of former economic analyses in the Danube River Basin

Danube Basin Analysis 2004

The first economic analysis of the Danube River Basin (in 2004) covered three issues, complementary

to the requirements for the economic analysis, based on national contributions and basin-wide

assessments, with the reference year 2000:

Assessing the economic importance of water uses;

Projecting trends in key economic indicators and drivers up to 2015;

Assessing current levels of recovery of costs for water services.

The assessment of the economic importance of water uses showed relatively high rates for connection

to public water supply, but lower rates for connection to the public sewerage system and to wastewater

treatment plants. Differences identified in the economic structure of the Danube River Basin countries

(agricultural production and structure, sources and structure of electricity generation etc.) contribute to

the varied importance of economic values of water among the countries.

The analysis of projected trends in key economic indicators and drivers up to 2015 showed that factors

such as the level of connection rates and efficiency improvements in water supply are important in

assessing future trends; but quantitative forecasts in total water supply and demand were not available

in the majority of the Danube countries.

The assessment of the levels of cost recovery for water services was based on data from pricing and

tariffs. As a result of differing economic, financial and institutional conditions in the Danube River

Basin countries, the pricing systems also varied considerably among the countries.

Danube River Basin Management Plan 2009

The economics chapter in the 1st DRBM Plan (of 2009), which was closely linked to national WFD

procedures, considered only those economic issues of relevance on the basin-wide scale and which

enabled international comparison. The most important issues, the horizontal issues, i.e. issues within

each Significant Water Management Issue should, as far as possible, be addressed as individual topics

in the economic analysis.

For preparing the economics chapter in the 1st DRBM Plan, the information included in the DBA in

2004 was used and updated. This happened through a data collection approach, which was based on



agreed templates and adapted in a way to reduce inconsistencies in data definition and collection and

methodological difficulties that arose from the previous analysis in 2004.

The present version of the economic analysis is based on national contributions, namely two

questionnaires treating mainly water pricing and related topics mentioned in Article 9 WFD. Hence,

the present analysis updates predominantly the issues surrounding water pricing, cost recovery, and

environmental and resource costs. Besides, some of the more general facts and figures have been

updated as well (e.g. GDP and connection rates to sewage/water supply networks, navigation,

hydropower).

An overview on the trends for some key economic indicators and drivers up to a year further in the

future than 2015, ideally 2021 in line with the 2nd

WFD cycle, is envisaged to be elaborated for the 2nd

DRBM Plan.

Since the cost-effectiveness analysis and the cost-benefit analysis are referring to measures, these

economic assessment tools are not addressed in the current update of the DBA.

8.2 Update of the economic importance of water services and water uses

According to Article 5 and Annex III of the WFD, an economic analysis of water uses had to be

carried out with the aim of assessing the importance of water use for the economy and assessing the

socio-economic development of the river basin; this analysis is herewith updated at the Danube River

Basin level.

Table 30 presents basic socio-economic data covering all fourteen countries belonging to the ICPDR.

As can be observed, a considerable difference in the GDP per capita figures exists between the

Danube basin countries that shows a significant disparity in wealth. This big gap between the countries

is reduced slightly when GDP per capita figures are expressed in Purchase Power Parities (PPP), as

can be seen in Figure 33.

Table 30: General socio-economic indicators of Danube countries

Country

Population within the DRBD16

Share of population within the Danube

Basin17 National GDP 201218 GDP 2012 per capita18 GDP 2012 per capita18

in Mio. in % of total

population in Mio. EUR in EUR per capita in PPP EUR per capita

Austria 7.7 95,4% (2013) 307,003 36,400 33,300

Bosnia and

Herzegovina 2.9 - 13,157.6 3,430.3

7,300 (in 2011;

estimated)

Bulgaria 3.5 48,5% (in 2011) 39,668 5,400 12,100

Croatia 3.1 68.5% (in 2001) 43,904 10,300 15,600

Czech

Republic 2.8 26.8% (in 2005) 152,926 14,500 20,300

Germany 9.7 41.6% (in 2010) 2,666,400 32,600 31,300

Hungary 10.0 100% 96,968 9,800 16,700

Moldova 1.1 32% (in 2011) 5,22119 1,46619 n. a.

Montenegro 0.2 28.7% 3,075 4,94419 7,34020

Romania 21.7 97.4% (estimated) 131,747 6,200 12,500

Serbia21 7.5 99.8% 3,147 4,335 (in 2012) 8,700 (in 2011)

Slovak

Republic 5.2 96.12% (2013) 72,134 (2013) 13,330 (in 2013) 19,400

Slovenia 1.7 88% (2013) 35,319 17,200 21,400

Ukraine 2.7 - 126,86318 2,79018 n. a.

16 ICPDR 2011: Facts and Figures Brochure.

17 National contributions.

18 eurostat.ec.europa.eu (2012 data); contributions from Danube countries.

19 http://www.imf.org/.

20 Data available only in International Dollars.

21 The data from Serbia do not include any data from the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija.



Figure 33: GDP per capita (PPP) of Danube countries

Note: Some countries are not illustrated due to lack of data (Ukraine and Moldova).

8.2.1 Characteristics of water services

"Water services" means all services which provide, for households, public institutions or any

economic activity (WFD Article 2 (38)):

Abstraction, impoundment, storage, treatment & distribution of surface water or groundwater;

Wastewater collection and treatment facilities which subsequently discharge into surface

water.

Four Danube countries - Austria, Germany, Moldova and Croatia - defined water services as

encompassing only water supply and wastewater collection/treatment. In the case of Croatia, it is

stated that "this will probably change in the 2nd

management cycle".

Seven other countries interpreted the WFD definition to encompass more than these two services. In

the Czech Republic, for example, further water services (beside water supply and wastewater

collection/treatment) are a) rivers and river basin management, surface water abstraction, groundwater

abstraction, discharge of wastewater into surface water, discharge of wastewater into the groundwater,

impoundment for the energy production, and navigation (only recreation; on Baťův kanál). At the

same time, it is stated that cost recovery is only calculated for water supply and wastewater in the first

cycle; in the second, CZ will include "irrigation in agriculture, water retention (in all sectors),

accumulation and impoundments for the purpose of protection against flooding, production of energy

(water energy, cooling)".

Slovakia defined three additional water services ("use of hydro-energy potential of watercourse,

abstraction of energy water from watercourse, abstraction of surface water from watercourse"), and

included these into CR calculations already in the first cycle. Serbia and Hungary defined "irrigation"

as water service (Hungary also includes "other agricultural water service", such as fishponds, in the

definition), whereas Romania, Slovenia and Bosnia and Herzegovina each defined a great number of

water services (17 further water services in the case of Slovenia, 13 in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 8 in

the case of Romania). Both Slovenia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, however, did not include these in

their cost recovery assessments.

Bulgaria subdivided the water services according to the economic sectors, i.e. water supply for

households, water supply for industry, water supply for agriculture, water supply for services and

tourism, as well as collection and treatment of wastewater of households, collection and treatment of

wastewater of industry, collection and treatment of wastewater of agriculture, and the collection and

treatment of wastewater of services and tourism are each defined as individual water services.

Bulgaria states that all of these are included in the calculation of CR, which, however, considers only

financial costs (for more detailed information on water services, see Annex 7).

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

AT DE SI CZ SK HU HR RO BG RS ME BAEuro



Basic information regarding water services and connection rates of the population to public water

supply, public sewerage systems and wastewater treatment plants are presented in Table 31 below.

The table shows the highest connection rates to public water supply mostly in the Western part of the

Danube basin: Hungary and the Czech Republic (data from Germany, Austria and Slovenia not

included), but some countries located in the Eastern part of the basin also show connection rates above

90% (for example, Bulgaria and Montenegro). A similar picture emerges with regard to connection

rates to public sewerage systems and wastewater treatment plants - high connection rates of 90% and

higher in the Western basin, and lower connection rates of 50% and below in the Eastern basin.

Table 31: Water production, wastewater services and connection rates in the Danube River Basin countries (if not indicated otherwise, the data refers to the national level)

Country

Water supply production (industry,

agriculture and households from

public systems)

Supply to households Population connected to public water supply

Population connected to public sewerage

system

Population connected to wastewater

treatment plant

in Mio. m3 in Mio. m3 in % in % in %

Austria Available as soon as figures for the economic analysis for the 2nd national River Basin Management Plan are available.

Bosnia and

Herzegovina 60-65 46 3

Bulgaria (in

2012) 184.14 (Danube) 135.92 (Danube) 99.3 74.3 56.11

Croatia (in

2010)

281 (Danube), 502

(national level) 127

77 (Danube), 69.7

(national level)

42 (Danube), 43.6

(national level)

29 (Danube), 24

(national level)

Czech

Republic 1,840.7 639.7 93.5 82.5

97.1 (of population

connected to public

sewerage system)

Germany 683.9 453.2 98.9 96.2 97.0

Hungary (in

2012) 598.5 341.7 94.2 74

99 (public sewerage

system)

Moldova 851 (130 from GW) 118 75 (urban); 13 (rural) 75 (urban); 13 (rural) 50 (urban); 2 (rural)

Montenegro 47 0.2 97.4

64 (no of households

with sewerage

services)

10

Romania 2,860 550 61.3 49.1 47.1

Serbia22

(2012) 655 324 86.6 54.6 7.5

Slovak

Republic 1,047.6 302.2 83.6 60.0 58.7

Slovenia - - - - -

Ukraine - - - - -

Source: contributions from Danube countries. Note: National-level data is depicted in all cases except Slovakia.

In several Danube countries, the water supply networks are in poor condition due to faulty design and

construction, and lack of maintenance and ineffective operation in some places. Leakage is generally

high - in many cases 30–50% of the water is lost. The extent of piped drinking water supplies to

households varies between urban and rural areas, with rural populations in some countries less well

provided. The share of the population connected to public sewer system varies from under 10% in

Moldova to over 95% in Germany.

The following two tables demonstrate the difference in the overall dimension of wastewater collection

and sewage treatment that exists in the Danube river basin.

As can be seen in Table 32, in Germany and Austria the percentage of agglomerations in which

wastewater is collected and treated reaches 100%; other countries in the Western part of the basin have

quotas that are similarly high (the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary). Further East, towards the

youngest EU Member States and non-EU Member States which still have a transition period, the share

of the agglomerations in which wastewater is collected and treated gets smaller. In Moldova, for

22 The data from Serbia do not include data from the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija.



example, in only 13 out of 580 agglomerations, the wastewater is collected and treated. In the whole

basin, almost 10 million people (population equivalents, to be correct) live in regions where

wastewater is neither collected nor treated.

Table 32: Wastewater Collection in the Danube River Basin23

Country

Number of agglomerations Population equivalent

Total Collected

and treated

Collected but not treated

Not collected

and not treated

Total Collected

and treated

Collected but not treated

Not collected

and not treated

Austria 605 605 0 0 18,703,643 18,703,643 0 0

Bosnia and

Herzegovina 240 4 85 151 2,030,920 34,100 1,539,220 457,600

Bulgaria 131 24 28 79 2,815,735 2,037,359 545,765 232,611

Croatia 167 26 60 81 3,392,989 2,001,483 1,086,632 304,874

Czech

Republic 237 228 9 0 2,556,296 2,535,152 21,144 0

Germany 705 705 0 0 13,080,212 13,080,212 0 0

Hungary 478 476 2 10,903,606 10,500,505 403,101 0

Moldova 190 19 10 161 845,523 254,275 48,214 543,034

Montenegro - - - - - - - -

Romania 2,390 486 196 1,708 24,580,527 12,735,280 4,833,823 7,011,424

Serbia24 485 33 163 289 5,467,046 876,740 3,475,236 1,115,070

Slovak

Republic 343 330 13 0 4,775,114 4,713,085 62,029 0

Slovenia 138 110 17 11 1,313,345 1,177,073 95,921 40,351

Ukraine 43 25 6 12 964,524 837,276 58,300 68,948

DRBD 6,152 3071 589 2,492 91,429,480 69,486,183 12,169,385 9,773,912

The following Table 33 demonstrates the level of the treatment, and again clearly shows the difference

in the level of wastewater treatment in the Danube basin. As can be seen, treatment plants with only

primary treatment do not exist in the Western part of the basin anymore. At the same time, treatment

plants that also remove nutrients, especially both nitrogen and phosphorous, are very common in

Germany and Austria (actually, most of the treatment plants in these two countries have N and P

removal), and less and less frequent towards the lower riparians and new EU Member States.

Table 33: Sewage Treatment in the Danube River Basin25

Country Number of agglomerations Population equivalent

Primary Secondary P removal N removal NP removal Primary Secondary P removal N removal NP removal

Austria 0 5 82 5 513 0 20,920 1,417,223 31,100 17,234,400

Bosnia and

Herzegovina 0 4 0 0 0 0 34,100 0 0 0

Bulgaria 8 11 0 0 5 75,519 556,001 0 0 1,405,839

Croatia 12 13 0 0 1 271,223 1,675,484 0 0 54,776

Czech

Republic 0 112 25 21 70 0 337,340 109,800 87,560 2,000,452

Germany 0 131 45 106 423 0 446,500 199,861 438,073 11,995,778

Hungary 6 192 13 18 247 34,955 3,272,890 964,001 417,924 5,810,735

Moldova 10 9 0 0 0 108,995 145,280 0 0 0

Montenegro - - - - - - - - - -

Romania 207 273 0 3 3 2,292,366 8,792,969 0 1,208,615 441,330

Serbia26 1 31 0 0 1 57,411 719,348 0 0 99,981

23 Source: Danube countries, data collection via ICPDR PM EG; reference year 2009, for BA 2006.


25 Source: Danube countries, data collection via ICPDR PM EG; reference year 2009, for BA 2006.



Slovak

Republic 0 301 0 8 21 0 3,614,316 0 455,472 643,297

Slovenia 0 81 0 0 29 0 848,445 0 0 328,628

Ukraine 3 22 0 0 0 81,700 755,576 0 0 0

DRBD 247 1,185 165 161 1,313 2,922,169 21,219,169 2,690,885 2,638,744 40,015,216

8.2.2 Characteristics of water uses

The WFD requires the identification of water uses: abstraction for drinking water supply, irrigation,

leisure uses, industry, etc., and a characterization of the economic importance of these uses. Water use

means water services together with any other activity having a significant impact on the status of

water. Some countries defined more water uses as water services than others.

Hydropower generation and navigation are regarded to be water uses of basin-wide economic

importance. Other water uses than these two have not been considered as economically significant on

the international, transboundary level. However, more detailed analyses of water uses, which are

economically significant on the national level, can be found in the national reports. This includes, for

example, data on water uses connected with other forms of electricity generation, such as cooling

water in thermal power plants.

The following tables provide an overview of the economic importance of water uses in the Danube

basin. As can be seen, agriculture still represents important economic sectors in several Danube

countries, such as Serbia, Moldova and Ukraine (around and above 10%). On the contrary, in other

Danube countries, mostly in the Western part of the basin, the share of agriculture in national GDP is

very low, compared to these levels - in the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Slovakia, the share is only

around 2%. Industry is significant in all Danube countries, not contributing a share way below 20% to

the national GDP (exceptions are Serbia and Slovenia, with figures a little below 20%). Electricity

generation, on the contrary, does not exceed the 5% mark in any of the Danube countries.

Table 34: Production of main economic sectors (national level)

Country

Agriculture Industry Electricity Generation

Share of GDP (in %)

Share of GDP (in %)

Share of GDP (in %)

Austria Available as soon as figures for the economic analysis for the 2nd national River Basin Management Plan are available.

Bosnia and

Herzegovina No information

Bulgaria (in 2011) 4.7 26.4 n. a.

Croatia (in 2008) 6.43 16.82 2.67

Czech Republic (in

2010)27 2.2 39.6 n. a.

Germany 0.8 (DRB) 30.3 (DRB) n.a.

Hungary (2012) 4.7 23 2.7

Moldova (2010) 28 39 3.4

Montenegro No information

Romania 4.4 20.8 0.8

Serbia28 (2012) 10.0 17.1 3.9

Slovak Republic (in

2012) 2.11 24.69 3.59

Slovenia (2012) 2.34 18.5 2.47

Ukraine 9.8229 - -

Other sources: contributions from Danube countries.


27 http://www.czso.cz/csu/2012edicniplan.nsf/t/E5002C5A4A/$File/501312K0407.pdf

28 The data from Serbia do not include data from the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. 29 ICPDR 2011: Facts and Figures Brochure.



Table 35: Hydropower generation in the Danube River Basin

Austria has by far the largest percentage of generated electricity based on hydropower (almost two

thirds of total electricity generated). The share of hydropower is also relatively high in Croatia,

Slovenia, Romania and Serbia (around 30%), and more modest in Germany (although the absolute

amount of electricity produced from hydropower is high), the Slovak Republic, and the Czech

Republic, where hydropower still plays an important role in the electricity system. However, in most

Danube countries (with the exception of DE, HU and MD), hydropower currently represents the most

important component of total renewable energy production (for more concrete information, see the

Assessment Report on Hydropower Generation in the Danube Basin).

30 Assessment Report on Hydropower Generation in the Danube Basin. AT, BG, CZ, DE, HU, MD, RS, SI and SK: data for the whole

country. RO data are relevant both for the Romanian part of the Danube River Basin as well as the whole country. BA, HR and UA: data

valid for the national part of the Danube River Basin only.

31 Assessment Report on Hydropower Generation in the Danube Basin . Excluding pumped storage. AT, BG, CZ, DE, HU, MD, RS, SI and

SK: data for the whole country. RO data are relevant both for the Romanian part of the Danube River Basin as well as the whole country. BA reported data for the current amount of electricity production for the national part of the Danube River Basin, while the figures for the

expected amount of electricity production in the year 2020 refer to the whole country. HR and UA: data valid for the national part of the

Danube River Basin only. It has to be stated that in RO, the year 2010 was an exceptional year as regards hydro-energy production, being the second highest year in the hydro- energy production history of RO.

32 Assessment Report on Hydropower Generation in the Danube Basin and national contributions. Own calculation. Excluding pumped storage.


Country

Installed hydropower capacity in 201030

Electricity production from hydropower in 201031

Share of hydropower generation32

in MW in GWh/year in % of total electricity generation

Austria 12,469 (2008) 37,958 (2008) 56.8

Bosnia and

Herzegovina 90 (2011) 1,667 18

Bulgaria 3,108 5,523 11.9

Croatia 339 1,495 31.8

Czech Republic 2,203 2,790 3.2

Germany 4,050 (2009) 19,059 (2009) 3.3

Hungary 55 188 0.5

Moldova none n. a. (79.1 including pumped

storage)

None (6% if pumped storage is

included)

Montenegro n. a. n. a. n. a.

Romania 6,453 19,857.2 33.2

Serbia33 2,859 (2009) 10,636 (2009) 24.2

Slovak Republic 2,515 (2012) 5,125 (2013) 18.4 (2013)

Slovenia 1,188 (2011) 4,198 29.6

Ukraine 36.2 0.16 n. a.

http://www.icpdr.org/main/activities-projects/hydropower



Table 36: The importance of inland navigation in the Danube River Basin

*This figure includes the data related to the Danube – Black Sea channel.

The above table shows that inland navigation does not play a major role in every Danube country - it

is relevant only for some Danube countries as there is no commercial inland navigation in the

countries on the edges of the Danube River Basin. The countries with the highest tonnage transported

on the Danube are Romania, followed by Austria and Serbia (all three countries move more than 10

million tons of cargo annually). Nevertheless, most other riparian countries also transport significant

amounts.

8.3 Trend projections until 2021

In order to assess key economic drivers likely to influence pressures and thus water status up to 2015,

a Baseline Scenario (BLS) has been developed in the 1st DRBM Plan from 2009. The trends

established in the BLS are considered to be updated and projected further into the future (until 2021)

in the 2nd

DRBM Plan.

Hereby, the trend projections will follow the DPSIR approach, i.e. focusing on the most relevant

drivers and pressures of socio-economic development and accompanying effects on water status

(quality and quantity).

8.4 Cost recovery

In the context of the previous economic analyses (i.e. the DBA 2004 and the 1st DRBM Plan 2009),

the topic of cost recovery (CR) was treated mainly in the national reports, and only briefly mentioned

in either DBA and the economics chapter of the 1st DRBM Plan. However, the present updated DBA

summarizes some information on CR approaches and methodologies used in the Danube countries,

based on national contributions (for more detailed information, see Annex 7).

Cost recovery for specific water services is defined as the ratio between the revenues paid for a

specific service and the costs of providing the service. The WFD calls for accounting related to the

recovery of costs of water services and information on who pays, how much and what for.

Analysing CR approaches in general, but especially in transboundary basins with a variety of national

approaches, faces several difficulties. First, the application of economic and environmental principles

into price setting and the degree of application of CR vary from one to another Danube country

according to the specific legal and socio-economic conditions. Second, the approaches to CR and

34 via donau – Österreichische Wasserstraßen-Gesellschaft mbH 2013: Danube Navigation in Austria; national contributions


Country

Freight transport on the entire Danube34 Number of major ports

Million tons Number

Austria 10.23 8

Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.06 2

Bulgaria 8.44 11

Croatia 5.32 2

Czech Republic none none

Germany 6.1 6

Hungary 7.71 12

Moldova 0.15 1

Montenegro n. a. n. a.

Romania 17.81* 12

Serbia35 11.32 14

Slovak Republic 8.24 3

Slovenia none n. a.

Ukraine 5.68 4



pricing vary inside the Danube countries as well, as often local authorities have the responsibility for

setting the price and therefore determining the degree of cost recovery of certain water services. Third,

the topic touches several difficult questions regarding methodologies and the understanding of, for

example, ERC and "adequate cost recovery". Furthermore, a number of influencing factors are to be

considered when analysing water prices, costs, or level of cost recovery in different countries with

varying socio-economic structures (such as general price levels, local favourable or unfavourable

conditions for water supply etc.).

Generally, all Danube countries have defined water services. The interpretation of what is to be

considered a water service varies (see chapter 8.2.1 above), as well as the consequences for CR

calculations. For example, the definition of a certain activity as water service does not necessarily

mean that this water service is included in cost recovery calculations (this, for example, is the case in

several Danube countries: a wide definitions of water services is used, but these are then not included

in the CR assessment; see Chapter 8.2.1 above, or tables 2, 3 and 4 in Annex 7).

Also, the methods and underlying definitions that are relevant for calculating CR differ between

Danube countries. Here, a variety of approaches can be observed: in some countries, CR is not

calculated, or the information - which is sometimes difficult to obtain - is missing or unclear; often,

only financial and/or operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are considered; some countries also

included ERC into cost recovery calculations, although in these cases, a clear definition of ERC is

missing (i.e. an underlying methodology to determine the ERC). Overall, five countries clearly state

the percental level of CR of water services in a quantitative manner, two countries partly.

Regarding ERC, the current understanding and approach to defining and/or calculating them varies

among the Danube countries. A full and comprehensive methodology for calculating ERC is not

reported by any Danube country, due to methodological difficulties and lack of information/data.

Nevertheless, a pattern can be observed that is followed by the majority of Danube countries in a

slightly different way. First of all, it has to be noted that "resource costs" are often understood not as

"opportunity costs" (i.e. the costs of foregone opportunity), but as the costs of the resource itself, i.e. as

a form of "abstraction price/cost". Environmental costs, on the contrary, are often defined as the costs

that are associated with the discharge of wastewater into water bodies, and the costs for wastewater

collection and treatment (and captured and internalized through the respective charges and fees - i.e.

the underlying assumption seems to be that the wastewater charges/fees adequately cover the

associated environmental damages; based on this assumption, the charges/fees are then equated with

the environmental costs; see below for more details).

Consequently, all Danube countries state that the principle of ERC cost recovery is applied by various

forms of charges/fees, or taxes (in Bulgaria, these are not yet in place, but in the process of being

established). Five countries state that in addition to charges/fees, permits which include

restrictions/limitations in a way that ERC do not occur fulfil this role as well. Mitigation and/or

supplementary measures seem to play a lesser role (two countries stating that

mitigation/supplementary measures contribute to ERC cost recovery).

8.5 Data gaps and uncertainties

In the process of updating the Danube Basin Analysis (of 2004) and the chapter on economics

included in the 1st DRBM Plan (of 2009), several gaps and uncertainties in the available data were

encountered.

Foremost, there are general data gaps regarding socio-economic data in some Danube River Basin

countries (but less than in the previous analysis in 2004), e.g. in Table 31 and Table 34 (i.e. regarding

connection rates to public water supply and sewage/wastewater treatment services, and the socio-

economic importance of agriculture, industry and electricity production). In other countries, such data

will be available with the 2nd

National River Basin Management Plans.

Furthermore, the accuracy of the data could be better, especially with regard to data that would be

most helpful on the basin level. Often, however, national data is only available based on administrative

units, which mostly do not coincide with the boundaries of the river basin. This results in a quite

heterogenic feedback from Danube countries regarding specific information. E.g. in the case of



hydropower, some countries reported for the year 2008, some for 2009, 2010 and 2011; some

submitted data for the Danube part of the national territory, some for the whole country; some Danube

countries provided average values over a period of three years. In Romania, the year 2010 was an

exceptional year as regards hydro-energy production, being the second highest year in the hydro-

energy production history of the country - accordingly, the figure may not represent the "usual" yearly

hydropower production.

Finally, it needs to be noted the main issues the update of the Danube economic analysis dealt with –

that is, water pricing, cost recovery and environmental and resource costs, are - unfortunately - not

fully advanced in terms of existing approaches, data and methods in order to completely answer all the

questions at hand regarding water pricing in the Danube countries. Instead, an overview of different

approaches and methodologies regarding water pricing, cost recovery and ERC is provided.

8.6 Summary and conclusion

In the DBA from 2004 it was stipulated to assess the national reports (Part B of the WFD Reports

2004) in order to obtain a complete picture on national levels of cost recovery of water services in the

Danube River Basin. This was regarded as an important step towards future analyses required under

the WFD.

In the 1st DRBM Plan, an increase in available economic data was identified. Especially the

availability of a large number of economic studies on the costs and prices of water services (including

ERC) was emphasized.

Now, in the present update of the DBA, even more data has been collected, and valuable contributions

were made by the Danube countries, allowing to get an overview of national approaches towards water

pricing, cost recovery, and ERC.

Nevertheless, further work remains regarding methodologies and possibly harmonized approaches.

This is not only due to gaps in the information available for the Danube countries, but is mainly

related to the great complexity of the topic, and the many gaps and uncertainties that still exist

regarding the methodologies to be applied for this topic.



9 Integration issues

9.1 Interlinkage between river basin management and flood risk management

Aware of the basin-wide relevance of flood issues, the ICPDR decided to develop its flood protection

policy, which was formalised by adoption of the ICPDR Action Programme on Sustainable Flood

Protection in the DRB in 2004. The Action Programme has been designed in line with the provisions

of the EU Flood Directive 2007/60/EC (FD), which aims to reduce and manage the risks that floods

pose to human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity. The FD is based on

the river basin approach and a six year cycle of planning likewise this is the case for the WFD.

The FD is to be implemented in three phases. During the first phase, a Preliminary Flood Risk

Assessment (PFRA)36

has been carried out for the DRB by December 2011 in order to identify areas

of existing or foreseeable future potentially significant flood risk. During the second phase, flood

hazard maps and flood risk maps are prepared by December 2013. These should identify areas prone

to flooding during events with a high, medium and low probability of occurrence, including those

where occurrences of floods would be considered an extreme event. The third phase requires to

produce catchment-based Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) by December 2015, focusing on

prevention, protection and preparedness, as well as setting objectives for managing the flood risk and

setting out a prioritised set of measures for achieving those objectives, thereby harmonizing with the

WFD river basin management planning cycle.

The integration between the WFD and the FD offers the opportunity to adopt a new approach to

optimize the mutual synergies and minimise conflicts between them. This is articulated in Article 9 of

the FD, requiring that “Member States shall take appropriate steps to coordinate the application of

this Directive and that of Directive 2000/60/EC (WFD) focusing on opportunities for improving

efficiency, information exchange and for achieving common synergies and benefits having regard to

the environmental objectives laid down in Article 4 of Directive 2000/60/EC”.

In practical terms, there are a number of reasons why coordination is beneficial. These include:

The overlap of legal and planning instruments in many countries;

Planning and management under both Directives generally use the same geographical unit (i.e.

the DRBD);

Aiding the efficiency of the implementation of measures and increasing the efficient use of

resources.

In order to address the different coordination requirements, the ICPDR developed in 2011 a list of

issues for a coordinated implementation of the WFD and FD in the DRBD, facilitating the exchange

between experts on relevant issues. Opportunities towards gaining synergies and key issues requiring

coordination are clearly seen for the programmes of measures of the 2nd

DRBM Plan and the 1st

DFRM Plan, both due by 2015 (e.g. the reactivation of former or creation of new retention and

detention capacities, addressing potential negative impacts of technical flood protection measures on

water status, regulation of spatial and land use planning, prevention of accidental pollution during

floods, etc.), whereas river and floodplain restoration are likely to provide the most significant direct

contribution to both FD and WFD objectives.

Finally, a coordinated public consultation and communication plan37

for both, the WFD and FD has

been put in place by the ICPDR to assist with the development of the 2nd

DRBM Plan and the 1st

DRFM Plan for the DRBD. The document serves as a blue-print for participation on a basin-wide,

outlining integrated consultation measures to be carried out.

36 http://www.icpdr.org/main/activities-projects/implementation-eu-floods-directive

37 http://www.icpdr.org/main/sites/default/files/nodes/documents/ic_wd_517_-_pp_drbmp_2015-public.pdf

http://www.icpdr.org/main/activities-projects/implementation-eu-floods-directive

http://www.icpdr.org/main/sites/default/files/nodes/documents/ic_wd_517_-_pp_drbmp_2015-public.pdf



9.2 Inland navigation and the environment

Inland navigation can contribute to making transport more environmentally sustainable, particularly

where it can act as a substitute for road transport. It can, however, also have significant influence on

river ecosystems, jeopardizing the goals of the WFD.

Recognising this potential conflict, the ICPDR initiated in cooperation with the Danube Navigation

Commission and the International Commission for the Protection of the Sava River Basin a cross-

sectoral discussion process involving all relevant stakeholders and NGOs. This led to the “Joint

Statement on Guiding Principles for the Development of Inland Navigation and Environmental

Protection in the Danube River Basin”38

, which was concluded in October 2007 and subsequently

agreed by the Commissions involved.

The Joint Statement summarises principles and criteria for environmentally sustainable inland

navigation on the Danube and its tributaries, including the maintenance of existing waterways and the

development of future waterway infrastructure. Following, a “Manual on Good Practices in

Sustainable Waterway Planning”39

was developed in the frame of the EU PLATINA project, which

started in 2008 and concluded in early 2012. The manual further outlines practical steps for integrated

planning approaches towards sustainable solutions taking into account both, the needs of inland

navigation and the environment.

A number of concrete navigation projects are in development or under implementation. Progress has

been made in setting up integrated planning approaches throughout the basin and for the practical

implementation of the Joint Statement principles in the frame of these projects. Noteworthy projects

include: Straubing-Vilshofen (DE), Danube East of Vienna (AT), Croatia/Serbia border region,

specific navigation bottlenecks along the Serbian Danube, Sava River (BA, RS, HR),

Romanian/Bulgarian border stretch of the Danube, and the Romanian Danube between Calarasi and

Braila.

In the frame of yearly meetings, exchange on the experiences with the application of the Joint

Statement is shared amongst administrations, stakeholders and environmental groups.

9.3 Sustainable hydropower

The increased production and use of energy from renewable sources, together with energy savings and

increased energy efficiency, constitute important steps towards meeting the need of reduced

greenhouse gas emissions to comply with international climate protection agreements. The

development of further renewable energy in line with the implementation of the EU Renewable

Energy Directive 2009/28/EC40

represents a significant driver for the development of hydropower

generation in the countries of the DRB. At the same time, Danube countries are committed to the

implementation of water, climate, nature and other environmental legislation.

Aware of the fact that hydropower plants offer an additional reduction potential for greenhouse gases

but recognizing as well their negative impacts on the riverine ecology, the Ministers of the Danube

countries asked in 2010 for the development of Guiding Principles on integrating environmental

aspects in the use of hydropower in order to ensure a balanced and integrated development, dealing

with the potential conflict of interest from the beginning.

The “Guiding Principles on Sustainable Hydropower Development in the Danube Basin”41

have been

elaborated in the frame of a broad participative process launched in 2011, with the involvement of

representatives from administrations (energy and environment), the hydropower sector, NGOs and the

scientific community. Besides providing background information on the relevant legal framework and

38 http://www.icpdr.org/main/activities-projects/joint-statement-navigation-environment

39 http://www.icpdr.org/main/sites/default/files/Platina_IWT%20Planning%20Manual.FINAL.Aug10.c.pdf

40 DIRECTIVE 2009/28/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC

41 http://www.icpdr.org/main/activities-projects/guiding-principles-sustainable-hydropower

http://www.icpdr.org/main/activities-projects/joint-statement-navigation-environment

http://www.icpdr.org/main/sites/default/files/Platina_IWT%20Planning%20Manual.FINAL.Aug10.c.pdf

http://www.icpdr.org/main/activities-projects/guiding-principles-sustainable-hydropower



statistical data, the Guiding Principles are addressing the following key elements for the sustainability

of hydropower:

1) General principles and considerations (the principle of sustainability, holistic approach in the

field of energy policies, weighing of public interests, etc.);

2) Technical upgrading of existing hydropower plants and ecological restoration measures;

3) Strategic planning approach for new hydropower development, and;

4) Mitigation measures.

The document is primarily addressed to public bodies and competent authorities responsible for the

planning and authorization of hydropower but are also relevant for potential investors in the

hydropower sector as well as NGOs and the interested public.

The Guiding Principles were adopted by the ICPDR in June 2013 and recommended for application by

the Danube countries, what is planned to be further facilitated via an exchange of experiences on the

application in the frame of a follow-up process.

9.4 Sturgeons in the Danube River Basin District

General background

Sturgeons represent a natural heritage for the Danube River Basin and the Black Sea. Considered as

“flagship species”, sturgeons constitute as “living fossils” a unique value for biodiversity but can also

be of significant importance from a socio-economic point of view since healthy and properly managed

stocks can sustain the income of fishermen communities and hatchery owners.

However, sturgeon stocks declined dramatically during the last century. From the six native Danube

sturgeon species that partly migrated from the Black Sea upstream as far as Regensburg on the Upper

Danube, one is already extinct, while the others are on the verge of extinction (see Table 37). Main

pressures include the disruption of migration routes due to infrastructure projects, the loss of habitats

and spawning grounds, pollution as well as overfishing of already diminishing stocks also for caviar

trade.

Table 37: Overview Danube sturgeon species and their status and trend according to IUCN

Species Also known as Status Trend

According to IUCN42

Acipenser

gueldenstaedti Danube sturgeon or Russian sturgeon Critically endangered Decreasing

Acipenser nudiventris Ship sturgeon or Fringebarbel

sturgeon Critically endangered Decreasing

Acipenser ruthenus Sterlet Vulnerable Decreasing

Acipenser stellatus Stellate sturgeon Critically endangered Decreasing

Acipenser sturio Common sturgeon, European

sturgeon, Atlantic sturgeon

Critically endangered

(extinct in DRB) Decreasing

Huso huso Beluga sturgeon or Great sturgeon Critically endangered Decreasing

Although not in their natural distribution, different sturgeon species are still present within the whole

Danube River Basin (in particular in the lower DRB, but with regard to the sterlet and ship sturgeon

also in the middle DRB, and with regard to the sterlet in the upper DRB). Therefore, sturgeons are an

issue of basin-wide concern and actions are required on the basin-wide scale.

42 Source: http://www.iucnredlist.org/search (Accessed: 28 April 2013)

http://www.iucnredlist.org/search



Required actions for the conservation of Danube sturgeons

Sturgeon conservation in the Danube River-Black Sea system requires a transboundary and

interdisciplinary approach. A first decisive step was made in 2005 with the development of the

“Action Plan for the conservation of Danube River sturgeons”43

under the Bern Convention. Further,

in 2009 the 1st DRBM Plan was adopted, which specified important key measures in the field of the

ICPDR (i.e. measures for pollution reduction and the improvement of hydromorphological

conditions). In addition, further measures were taken on the national level to prevent sturgeons from

extinction, i.e. catchment bans in Bulgaria, Romania and Serbia, and more recently in Austria on

provincial level.

The issue lately gained broad political attention in the frame of the EUSDR, with the agreed target “To

secure viable populations of Danube sturgeon species and other indigenous fish species by 2020”.

Working towards the achievement of this target, the “Danube Sturgeon Task Force” (DSTF) was

created in January 2012 in the frame of EUSDR Priority Area 6 (Biodiversity), where different

organisations from the Danube basin (e.g. WWF, IAD, ICPDR, representatives from national research

institutions, Ministries and the World Sturgeon Conservation Society) joined to work towards the

issue. The DSTF aims to coordinate and foster conservation efforts in the DRB and the Black Sea by

promoting actions which are outlined in the strategy and programme “Sturgeon 2020”, developed by

the DSTF based on the Danube Sturgeon Action Plan from 2005.

The ICPDR dedicated Danube Day 2013 to the motto “Get active for the sturgeons” in support of the

ongoing process, leading to various public information and awareness raising events organised by the

Danube countries throughout the basin. Furthermore, the following urgent priority actions were

identified by the ICPDR:

1) Investigations on the potential feasibility to establish fish migration at the Iron Gate dams,

including migration through the reservoir of Iron Gate I;

2) Monitoring and mapping of existing and historic44

sturgeon habitats in the DRB, and;

3) Ex-situ conservation measures in support of a self-sustaining sturgeon reproduction and the

natural life cycle.

A first compilation of important regions with sturgeon habitats (known and potential spawning sites,

wintering sites, feeding sites) was compiled by sturgeon experts in the frame of the DSTF and is

illustrated in Figure 34. Different methods were applied for this compilation, including literature

review, information from fishermen on catches, presence and absence data on Young of the Year fish,

bathymetric and granulometric surveys, as well as telemetry data for mature fish. However, further

monitoring and mapping activities are required to obtain a comprehensive picture on the situation,

allowing for more targeted conservation activities.

43 http://www.iad.gs/docs/reports/SAP.pdf

44 All available historic data sources are useful for the mapping of historic habitats, including specifically also data from the time period

before the main river regulation works and economic development activities have been conducted.

http://www.icpdr.org/main/sturgeon-2020-program

http://www.iad.gs/docs/reports/SAP.pdf



Figure 34: Potential critical habitat for A. gueldenstaedtii, A. nudiventris, A. ruthenus, A. stellatus and H. huso as identified by various methods45

Planned next steps

The three priority actions identified by the ICPDR are planned to be accomplished via specific

projects, whereas the ICPDR expressed support for the elaboration of respective project proposals

which have to be developed and handed in under appropriate funding instruments. Beside these

targeted activities, the next steps in the implementation of the WFD, i.e. the 2nd

DRBM Plan and its

Joint Programme of Measures, will provide the opportunity for the implementation of necessary

conservation measures in support for the achievement of the agreed EUSDR target on sturgeons.

9.5 Water scarcity and drought

General issues

Attention to water scarcity and drought events in Europe has increased in the recent decade,

particularly following the widespread droughts in 2003 that affected over 100 million people, a third

of EU territory, and cost approximately € 8.7 billion in damage to the European economy46

.

Additional water scarcity and drought events have since affected portions of Northern, Southern, and

Western Europe in 2007, 2011, and 2012 (see Figure 35)47

. These recent trends highlight the

significance of growing imbalances in water supply and availability in Europe, specifically in the

context of climate change.

45 Compiled from Friedrich 2012, Guti 2006 & 2012, Lenhardt 2012, Ludwig et al. 2009, Pekarik 2012, Suciu 2012, Suciu & Guti 2012 and

Vassilev 2003, partially unpublished information

46 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament – Addressing the challenge of water scarcity and

droughts, COM(2007) 414, 18 July 2007.

47 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament – Report on the Review of the European Water Scarcity

and Droughts Policy, COM(2012) 672 final, 14 November 2012.



Figure 35: Water scarcity and drought events in Europe in the period 2002 – 2011 (Source: ETC/ICM 201248)

In line with the 2007 Communication by the European Commission on Water Scarcity and Droughts,

and as agreed upon by the EU Member States49

, the concepts of water scarcity and drought were

developed as:

Water scarcity is a man-made phenomenon. A recurrent imbalance that arises from an

overuse of water resources caused by consumption being significantly higher that the natural

renewable availability. Water scarcity can be aggravated by water pollution (reducing the

suitability for different water uses), and during drought episodes.

Drought is a natural phenomenon. A temporary, negative, and severe deviation along a

significant time period and over a large region from average precipitation values (deficit in

rainfall), which might lead to meteorological, agricultural, hydrological, and socioeconomic

drought, based on its severity and duration.

Though there are clear similarities and differences between water scarcity and drought, the 2012 EU

Gap Analysis of Water Scarcity and Droughts Policy in the EU50

highlights the following differences:

1) Drought causes economic damage mostly in the peak spring or summer season when the

irrigation demand is highest, the effects of winter drought often being less notable;

2) Water scarcity poses a permanent limit to the economic development of a region or to the

ecological status of ecosystems, whereas drought poses only a time-limited (potentially

significant) water shortage; and

3) Drought may occur in different water-scarce conditions, droughts under high water scarcity

require specific treatment from a risk-management perspective.

48 European Topic Centre on Inland, Coastal and Marine Waters. Available: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/main-drought-

events-in-europe

49 INTECSA-INARSA, S.A., based on previous draft by TYPSA (2012). Working definitions for Water Scarcity and Drought Report to the

European Commission.

50 ACTeon (2012). Gap Analysis of the Water Scarcity and Droughts Policy in the EU. Available:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/WSDGapAnalysis.pdf

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/main-drought-events-in-europe

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/main-drought-events-in-europe

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/WSDGapAnalysis.pdf



Therefore, formulating clear distinctions between these events can aid in the development of more

effective River Basin Management Plans and in strengthening future water management practices.

Water scarcity and drought in the Danube River Basin

The role of water scarcity and drought in river basin management is expected to become more relevant

over time also within the DRB, particularly with increased attention to climate change. Therefore, the

ICPDR became active in elaborating on the relevance of the issue of water scarcity and drought, which

was previously not systematically addressed on the basin-wide scale and what is in line with the

following specific target agreed in the frame of the EUSDR: “To address the challenges of water

scarcity and drought based on the 2013 update of the Danube Basin Analysis and the ongoing work in

the field of climate adaptation, in the Danube River Basin Management Plan to be adopted by

2015”51

.

Based on feedback provided by the Danube countries via a specific questionnaire, it can be

summarised that water scarcity and drought is not considered as a SWMI for the majority of the

countries, but a number of countries consider them as a SWMI in River Basin Management Plans on

national level. The main sectors which were reported to be affected by water scarcity and drought

include agriculture, water supply, biodiversity, other energy production, hydropower, navigation and

public health.

Water scarcity and drought was reported to be addressed by a number of Danube countries in their

national River Basin Management Plans, whereas specific measures are planned or already under

implementation (e.g. increase of irrigation efficiency, reduction of leakages in water distribution

networks, drought mapping and forecasting, education of public on water-saving measures, market-

based instruments, wastewater recycling and rain water harvesting). Further details from the

assessment can be obtained from Annex 7.

Summary and outlook

It can be concluded that water scarcity and drought is not considered as an issue requiring coordination

and management on the basin-wide level at this stage. This is also due to the fact that the relevance of

the issue and the situation is differing between the countries and regions within the DRB. However,

maintaining an exchange on the topic is considered to be beneficial, also in relation to the ongoing

discussions on climate change adaptation, what should be facilitate via the exchange of best practice

examples. Furthermore, a specific chapter on water scarcity and drought is planned to be devoted in

the 2nd

DRBM Plan, which should also reflect on the diversity of the situation within the basin.

9.6 Adaptation to climate change

Despite ambitious international climate protection objectives and activities, adaptation to climate

change impacts is urgently needed. Water, together with temperature, is in the centre of the expected

changes. Due to the fact that water is a cross-cutting issue with major relevance for different sectors,

water is the key for taking the required adaptation steps. In the DRB, climate change is likely to cause

significant impacts on water resources and can develop into a significant threat if the reduction of

greenhouse gas emissions is not complemented by climate adaptation measures.

In order to take the required steps on adaptation, the ICPDR was asked in the 2010 Danube

Declaration52

to develop a Climate Adaptation Strategy for the DRB. In December 2012, the ICPDR

Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change53

was finalised and adopted. The Strategy provides an

outline of the climate change scenarios for the DRB and the expected water-related impacts.

Furthermore, an overview on potential adaptation measures is provided and the required steps towards

integrating adaptation into ICPDR activities and the next planning cycles are described.

51 EUSDR Report June 2012. Priority Area 5 - To manage Environmental Risk.

52 Danube Declaration: http://www.icpdr.org/main/sites/default/files/Ministerial%20Declaration%20FINAL.pdf

53 ICPDR Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change: http://www.icpdr.org/main/activities-projects/climate-adaptation

http://www.icpdr.org/main/sites/default/files/Ministerial%20Declaration%20FINAL.pdf

http://www.icpdr.org/main/activities-projects/climate-adaptation



Since adaptation to climate change is a cross-cutting issue, all relevant ICPDR Expert Groups and

Task Groups were mandated to fully integrate adaptation to climate change in the planning process for

the implementation of the WFD and FD in the Danube River Basin, specifically for the elaboration of

the 2nd

DRBM Plan and the 1st DFRM Plan. Adaptation to climate change is therefore in need to be

addressed and integrated into the different SWMIs and other relevant ICPDR activities.



10 Public information and consultation

Objectives and legal framework for Public Participation

The ICPDR is committed to active public participation in its decision making. The commission

believes that this facilitates broader support for policies and leads to increased efficiency in the

implementation of measures. The ICPDR pursues the consultation of stakeholders in the entire cycle

of ICPDR activities: from conceptualising policies, to implementing measures, to evaluating impacts.

A legal framework for this is provided by the EU Water Framework Directive (Art. 14).

In practice, the ICPDR pursues public participation primarily through two avenues: (1) through the

involvement of observer organisations in its ongoing work; and (2) through specific activities that are

dedicated to public participation and communication. A third line of activities are ad-hoc stakeholder

dialogues. These are conducted in areas that require inter-sectoral approaches, in particular inland

navigation, climate change adaptation, hydropower and agriculture.

Observers to the ICPDR

Observers of the ICPDR can actively participate in all meetings of ICPDR expert groups and task

groups, as well as plenary meetings (Standing Working Group and Ordinary Meetings). Observers

represent a broad spectrum of water stakeholders in the Danube River Basin, covering social, cultural,

economic and environmental interest groups. As of April 2014, there were 22 organisations approved

as observers, all of which had the opportunity to contribute to the development of the DBA. Observers

are accepted upon approval of the ICPDR and have to meet a defined set of criteria.

Public participation, communication and outreach

Under the umbrella of public participation and communication, the ICPDR pursues a range of specific

activities. These include public information such as the development of technical public documents

and general publications (e.g. the quarterly magazine Danube Watch); environmental education and

outreach activities (e.g. the annual river festival Danube Day or the teacher’s kit Danube Box); but

also e.g. the public consultation activities directly related to the development of Danube River Basin

Management Plans.

Public Consultation in line with Art. 14 WFD

The DBA provides the analytical basis for the Danube River Basin Management Plan. To accompany

the development of the DRBMP, public consultation is done in three stages54

: comments from the

public are collected (1) on a timetable and work programme including public consultation measures;

(2) on significant water management issues (SWMIs) in the river basin; and (3) the draft management

plan.

Public consultation for each of these steps spans a period of six months, in which the opportunity to

provide comments is actively promoted through the ICPDR network. The timetable and work

programme was published for comments from 22 December 2012 to 22 June 2013; the SWMI

document was published 22 December 2013 and comments are collected until 22 June 2014; the draft

DRBMP will enter the public consultation phase on 22 December 2014 and will convene in summer

2015. For this last step, a stakeholder workshop and online consultation tools are planned to actively

collect views from the civil society in the first half of 2015.

54 See ”WFD & EFD: Public Participation Plan”. ICPDR document number: IC WD 517.



11 Summary and conclusions

The summary and conclusions focus on aspects of the implementation of the WFD at the basin-wide

scale. Updated assessments will as well be performed for the 2nd

DRBM Plan.

A common typology for the Danube River itself has been developed jointly by the Danube countries.

Most of the national typologies of the Danube countries are based on the System B. All typologies

show a good degree of coherence. On the basin-wide level, the Danube countries have agreed on

general criteria as a common base for the definition of reference conditions. These have then been

further developed on the national level into type-specific reference conditions.

59 water bodies have been identified on the Danube River, and 644 water bodies have been identified

on the tributaries with catchments >4000km2. Similar approaches for the delineation of water bodies in

the Danube countries have been applied.

Pollution stemming from organic-, nutrient- and hazardous substances, as well as hydromorphological

alterations, remain the key pressure types and Significant Water Management Issues affecting the

waters of the DRBD.

With regard to organic pollution, the urban waste water sector generates about 280,000 tons of BOD

and 670,000 tons of COD annual emissions (reference year: 2009/2010) into the surface water bodies

of the DRBD. The direct industrial emissions of organic substances total up to approximately 50,000

tons of COD per year (reference year: 2010/2011). The significant investments in recent years on

organic pollution control resulted in a considerable reduction of emissions. Despite this progress

additional measures will have to be taken in the future to continue these progressive developments in

the urban waste water and industrial sectors.

Concerning the recent nutrient emissions under long-term average (2000-2008) hydrological

conditions, 670,000 tons of TN and 44,000 tons of TP are entering the water bodies of the DRBD per

year. Although measures which are under implementation are substantially contributing to the

reduction of nutrient inputs into surface and groundwater, the recent nutrient loads transported to the

Black Sea are still considerably higher than those of the early 1960ies. Further efforts will be required

to decrease both, point and diffuse source emissions generated in the DRBD.

On pollution from hazardous substances the Danube countries have taken important steps to fill the

existing data and knowledge gaps. The on-going ICPDR investigations on priority and other hazardous

substances will provide essential information on the relevance of these substances, resulting in a much

clearer picture on the pollution problem than ever before. However, knowledge still needs to be further

improved and the implementation of measures should be proceeded in the future to appropriately

address this problem.

Apart from water pollution, hydromorphological modifications resulting from various hydro-

engineering measures and water uses remain to significantly alter the natural structure of surface

waters, causing impacts on the abiotic sphere as well as on the ecology.

1,018 barriers are located in the DRBD, out of which 335 were reported to be equipped with

functional fish migration aids, which is inter alia a result of the currently ongoing implementation of

the Joint Programme of Measures 2009. With regard to the morphological condition of water bodies,

7% were reported to be in near-natural, respectively an additional 21% in near natural to slightly

altered condition – data which was for the first time collected for the DRBD. Further efforts will be

required towards achieving a better harmonisation and comparability of the assessments.

On wetlands and floodplains, out of the approximately identified 280,527 ha of wetlands and

floodplains with reconnection potential, 46,089 ha are in the meantime partially and 89,954 ha have

been totally reconnected and the hydrological regime improved, with different positive effects i.e. on

water status, flood mitigation and climate adaptation.



249 out of a total of 703, and therefore a significant number of river water bodies, is affected by

hydrological alterations like impoundments, water abstractions and/or hydropeaking stemming from

different water uses and infrastructure projects. The key drivers for different future infrastructure

projects that may provoke hydromorphological alterations and impacts on surface water status in the

future are with 71% of the projects inland navigation, 21% flood protection and 8% hydropower

generation.

Altogether 25,582 km of river water bodies were evaluated in the 2013 Update of the DBA. 11,840 km

of rivers are not at risk of failure to achieve good ecological status or ecological potential (42%) and

16,192 km of rivers will be not at risk of failure to achieve good chemical status (60%).

The risk of failure to achieve a good ecological status or ecological potential by 2021 is caused by

organic pollution (19% of the river length), nutrient pollution (20%), hazardous substances pollution

(27%) and by hydromorphological alterations (34%). Therefore, addressing these types of pressures

will remain a key issue for the 2nd

DRBM Plan and updated Joint Programme of Measures for the

period 2015 until 2021.

Next to surface waters, groundwater is of major importance in the DRBD as well and subject to a

variety of uses with the main focus on drinking water, industry, agriculture, spa and geothermal energy

purposes. Pollution by nitrates from diffuse sources is the key factor affecting the chemical status of

these groundwaters. The major sources of this diffuse pollution are agricultural activities, non-sewered

population and urban land use. Over-abstraction poses a significant pressure on quantitative status of

the groundwater bodies of basin-wide importance in the DRB. The evaluation of risk assessment for

groundwater will be possible after receiving data from Hungary. This information will be provided for

the 2nd

DRBM Plan.

In summary, although progress in addressing existing pressures has been achieved, a significant share

of Danube waters remains to be at risk of failing to achieve good status or good potential. The 2nd

DRBM Plan and updated Joint Programme of Measures constitutes a key opportunity to take the next

steps for a sustainable management of the Danube River Basin. One major success factor towards

achieving this objective is to proceed working in close cooperation with different stakeholders and

water-relevant sectors like inland navigation, hydropower, sustainable flood risk management or

agriculture.

The 2013 Update of the Danube Basin Analysis Report · 2013 Update of the Danube Basin Analysis Report ii ICPDR / International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River

Documents